Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Midland Line

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet representatives of local authorities and others regarding midland line electrification; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am meeting representatives of Northamptonshire county council shortly to discuss the report which the local authorities have commissioned on electrification of the midland main line. It is for British Rail to consider whether there is a commercial case for electrification, and I hope that the local authorities will discuss their plans with British Rail.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that nearly every local authority in the east midlands—Labour and Tory—agrees with the midland line electrification programme? They have been demanding it for years—for the whole time that the Government have been in power. They cannot understand why, when more passengers are using the line, it has occasionally been under threat and why the Government cannot provide the local authorities with a morale boost by giving money to British Rail to get the job

done. Why are the Government so concerned about roads? Is it because the road lobby companies line the pockets of the Tory party?

Mr. Freeman: I am well aware that there is considerable support among the local authorities affected by the midland line electrification. The Government welcome sensible electrification proposals on both this line and others.

Mr. Skinner: Give them the money then.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be sensible for the Government to spend taxpayers' money unless there were a sound commercial case for electrification. There are two facts that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities will bear in mind. First, the rolling stock on the line has another 10 years of useful life. I am sure that, when the rolling stock has to be replaced, British Rail will look carefully at the future of the line. Secondly, straightening the line to increase the average speed of trains could be more productive than electrification.

Mr. Lester: When my hon. Friend meets his local authority colleagues in Northamptonshire, will he also consider the freight operations on the midland line? Many of us are anxious that the channel tunnel should help all areas in the midlands and the north. Therefore, it is essential to have freight depots in the right place. I know that that is very much a matter for the Minister. I hope that he will consider it in the near future.

Mr. Freeman: British Rail will shortly be deciding where to locate the terminals for collecting freight for onward shipment through the channel tunnel. It is to announce the location of the terminals during the next six months. Before the end of the year its plans will be fully unfurled. Electrification of the line is not relevant to freight services through the channel tunnel. Freight can and will be collected at various terminals and, if necessary, assembled for forwarding on through-trains in London. However, I understand the significance of freight to the railway industry so that it can capitalise on the channel tunnel.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that York is 50 miles north of Sheffield and that trains get there faster from London and that Leeds is 35 miles north of Sheffield and that trains from London get there in the same journey time? How on earth does he expect business men to invest in coalfields and steelworks areas and in places of high unemployment in the north midlands when it takes an hour to travel 35 miles to Manchester because there is no InterCity service? Railway connections throughout the area are backward and should have been updated many years ago.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrification of the east coast main line, and that is an excellent service. British Rail has plans, yet to be submitted to the Government, for improving speeds on the west coast main line. We welcome those forward-looking plans. As for the midland main line, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Electrification will not significantly increase running speeds. Widening bridges and straightening the curves on the midland main line would do more than electrification for average speeds.

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new Dartford-Thurrock crossing will be opened.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Construction of the new Dartford to Thurrock bridge is progressing well. The main pier pylons were erected at the end of last month. The project is on target for completion by summer 1991.

Mr. Arnold: My constituents and those in north-west Kent will warmly welcome the prospects of the speeding up of the crossing by the M25 of the River Thames and of getting rid of the immense traffic congestion that we suffer in that part of the world. But can my right hon. Friend assure us that the infrastructure of roads feeding up to the bridge will be up to the job?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. Part of the plan is to turn the approach roads to the tunnel and the bridge into dualled four-lane roads, so there will be four lanes going north and four travelling south.

Mr. Squire: For the benefit of hon. Members who represent constituences on each side of the bridge, and given the critical importance of the crossing not just for personal use but for international freight, can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the contractors would be subject to financial penalties were they to finish late?

Mr. Parkinson: The big incentive that the contractors have is that their concession runs for only 20 years, and if they are late in completing the project, they will be late in starting to collect the revenue. That means that they have a real financial incentive to complete the bridge on time.

A69, Northumberland

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to dual the A69 west of Hexham; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parkinson: There are no plans to dual the A69 west of Hexham. The Brampton bypass, now under construction in Cumbria, is to be a single carriageway. This will also be the case for the improvement at Haltwhistle in Northumberland.
Traffic flows west of Hexham are relatively light and even with the new traffic forecasts, which look well ahead, any significant dualling is unlikely to be justified.

Mr. Amos: Will my right hon. Friend note that everybody in the north-east is extremely grateful for his decision to upgrade the A1 to a motorway as far as Newcastle, but that that means that in future years the A69 will fall between two major motorways—the new A1 and the M6—which will increase flows on that road? In the light of the excellent news that my right hon. Friend announced last week, may I ask him to give us some more good news as soon as possible?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. We will monitor developments on the A69 after the A1 to Newcastle has been turned into a motorway, but, as my hon. Friend knows, traffic flows west of Hexham are very light indeed by comparison with those east of Hexham. That is why the road is dualled as far as Hexham but not beyond. Nevertheless, we shall look at the matter very carefully.

Motorways (Spray)

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take fresh initiatives to reduce the lateral spray caused by heavy goods vehicles on motorways in adverse weather conditions.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Since 1985, all United Kingdom heavy goods vehicles have been required to have anti-spray devices fitted. These are the most stringent requirements in Europe and we are keen to see the rest of Europe come up to our standard.

Mr. Michael: I thank the Minister for that reply and I share his wish that the requirements should be stringent. But has he had the experience that I have had when driving up the M4? Has he found that there is a massive variation in the amount of spray produced by different heavy goods vehicles, some of which produce little lateral spray while others produce an enormous and dangerous amount? Does not that suggest that we need greater controls—either through regulations or through their enforcement—to minimise the considerable danger to motorists that is caused when their vision is obscured in this way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he was referring to different amounts of spray being produced on the same sort of day, as the amount of spray can depend on the wind. I often drive up the M1 and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I suffer from exactly the same experience. That is why the Government are keen to see our requirements matched by the rest of Europe and why we are pursuing the matter with urgency.

Mr. Cormack: Is not most of the lateral spray caused by buses, and is not it time that we prevented buses from travelling in the fast lane of motorways?

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not know the exact answer to that, although my experience is that given the right conditions, lorries and buses both cause tremendous


amounts of spray. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that we are keen to ensure that all vehicles are fitted with anti-spray devices as quickly as possible.

Road Safety

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve road safety for children.

Mr. McLoughlin: A wide range of measures to improve road safety have been taken under the umbrella of our "Safety on the Move" campaign. Britain has a good record on road safety. An area of great concern is that of child safety, especially child pedestrians, where there is particular scope for improvement. A sustained programme of measures on child safety was launched in May, including proposals to enable local authorities to make residential streets safer. We will be launching a further phase of that campaign concentrating on child pedestrian safety shortly.

Mr. Mitchell: Are not my hon. Friend and his Department to be congratulated on the recent initiative, particularly in view of its co-ordinating measures? In pursuing that, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of using parent-teacher associations in schools to promote road safety? They marry the interests of parents in looking after children and the interests of schools. Those are the two principal ways of promoting road safety for children and those avenues have been well explored and used in my constituency. Parent-teacher associations can make a most important contribution. Will my hon. Friend ensure that they are included as the programme evolves?

Mr. McLoughlin: In any campaign of this kind, we must do as much as we can to draw to the attention of PTAs, parents and everyone involved in supervising children the importance of ensuring that children are fully aware of the dangers that they can face on our roads. Those accidents can be prevented and I know that all hon. Members would want to see as much as possible done on that subject.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that although "Children crossing" signs are much in evidence, in many such areas local authorities still allow 40 mph speed limits? Will he recommend to local authorities that that limit should be reduced to 30 mph?

Mr. McLoughlin: A number of initiatives that were outlined earlier will do much to meet the hon. Gentleman's requirement. However, perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the reduction of speed to wipe out those accidents. A number of factors lead to those accidents and we must ensure that people are more aware of the dangers on our roads. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that children have been among the victims of drunken driving? Is he aware also that recent press reports have suggested that he is considering whether different levels of alcohol in the blood should be considered, depending on the age of the driver? That would be a very bad thing to introduce because it would give the impression that drunken driving

at one age is more or less dangerous than drunken driving at another. Clearly the same level of alcohol should be considered whatever the age of the driver.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments and he referred to ideas that are out for consultation at the moment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, drinking and driving accounts for 900 deaths a year on our roads. It is the biggest single cause of road accidents and anything that can be done to make people more aware of the danger in which they put others when they drink and drive can only be helpful.

Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that many of his proposals place an onus on local authorities to take more action? Bearing in mind that many of those initiatives, which are admirable in their way, will cost a great deal of money, the present restrictions on local authorities mean that unless more money is made available, the carnage and injury to our children will continue. It is important that when highlighting, quite rightly, what is happening with children and road safety—and the report is clear about that—money is made available to the local authorities. At the moment they are under such severe restrictions that many of them are saying that they cannot implement many of the recommendations.

Mr. McLoughlin: It is perhaps not surprising that the Labour party has brought into play the question of money for local authorities. Those of us with extreme local authorities could point to several ways in which they could make savings and divert their money to areas where it could be used better and more effectively. It is not just the local authorities which should take the lead in this matter; parents and all those involved in educating children should also play a part. I totally and absolutely reject the idea that local authorities are short of money for that vital provision. However, it is not surprising to hear that claim from the Opposition.

British Rail

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss plans for denationalisation.

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend will discuss privatisation, when appropriate at his regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the frustration in great railway cities such as York which have seen the denationalisation of Sealink, Travellers Fare on-station catering, and British Rail Engineering Ltd., but not of the core business of British Rail? Would not it be more productive and better for those who actually use rail services if he were to call for denationalisation plans? That could be an opportunity for those who work in that great industry to have a share in its success, which my hon. Friend is frustrating at present.

Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to achieve a better deal for the consumer—the passenger on British Rail. Therefore, the recent reorganisation plans that were announced by British Rail and which are based on the business sectors of British Rail—freight, international, InterCity, provincial and Network SouthEast—are to be welcomed because they focus


management's effort and attention on improving the service that is available to consumers. That reorganisation is not inconsistent with privatisation, but that is not a matter for this Parliament.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that the chairman of British Rail recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport that, although the financial targets that had been set by the Government were being met, there was no question of the quality of service being met? That has a great deal more to do with the comfort of passengers than all the nonsense that is talked about trying to sell off an unprofitable business.

Mr. Freeman: There is no prospect in this Parliament of any proposals for denationalising British railways. I was not present to hear the evidence that was given by Sir Bob Reid, but I assure the hon. Lady that the financial target that was set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the quality targets are achievable by British Rail. I shall shortly be having a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport to monitor what progress has been made on those quality objectives and to work with those two undertakings to make sure that they are achieved.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that if Japan, America, France and Germany find a need to subsidise railways as a public service, it cannot be a sound policy to keep on pushing up InterCity and commuter fares in the vain hope of selling off something which, if it is to be profitable, will leave us with three private lines? Will the Minister accept that railways are a necessary part of the infrastructure of this country and that spending £600 million on the A1 is not as important as spending £600 million on railways?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that, over the next three years, road investment in this country, paid for by the taxpayer, will be about £6 billion and investment in rail schemes by British Rail and London Regional Transport will also be £6 billion. A significant proportion of that railway investment will be paid by the public sector, either in subsidy for Network SouthEast or provincial railways, or by borrowing from the national loans fund. We have the proportion of investment in roads and railways right. If my hon. Friend looks at the experience of Germany and France, he will see that there are pressures there to reduce the losses and the subsidies that they are suffering and that they wish to emulate British Rail and the experience of this public sector.

Mr. Prescott: Are the Minister and the Secretary of State aware of the conclusion of two recent reports by the European Commission and the chartered accountants' institute that British Rail is seriously disadvantaged in being prevented from raising private capital to finance a high-speed rail link, as in France and Germany, simply because of Treasury rules and the financial targets that have been imposed on British Rail by all Governments? Will he press for changes so that a publicly owned British Rail can raise private capital on its own to finance a new high-speed rail link this century rather than next century?

Mr. Freeman: I must first correct the hon. Gentleman—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales did not produce that report. The body that

produced the report is not part of the institute—I happen to know that because I belong to it. The Hundred Group of chartered accountants is not part of the profession.

Mr. Snape: Did the Minister read the report?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, I did. I not only participated in the production of the 1981 report, but carefully read the 1989 update.
On the point about borrowing from the private sector for railway investment, of course, British Rail wants to use private sector finance. That was what the proposal that was put to us about the channel tunnel high-speed rail link was all about. The proposal did not work, because the balance was not right—[Interruption.] Well, I can advise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that there is no shortage of capital in this country and no shortage of railway investment schemes in which people can invest. The problem is to find viable schemes that will ensure the repayment of that capital. The hon. Gentleman talks about raising £15 billion for a high-speed rail link—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, £15 billion for a high-speed rail link from Folkestone to Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that that scheme is not and will not be viable. He is assuming that money is available for projects that are not viable and where the money cannot be repaid.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is an agreement to take question No. 9 at the end. We therefore move to question No. 10.

HM Coastguard

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were directly assisted in 1989–90 by Her Majesty's Coastguard's civil maritime search and rescue service.

Mr. McLoughlin: Provisional figures for 1989 show that from 6,837 incidents co-ordinated by the coastguards, more than 11,500 persons were assisted by a combination of Coastguard helicopters, vehicles and rescue equipment; Ministry of Defence helicopters, Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats and other vessels.

Mr. Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Solent is the busiest coastal area in the United Kingdom? Will he add his tribute to mine to the coastguards for their excellent work in looking after our seafarers—both professional and amateur—365 days a year, and especially during the round the island race, which is probably the world's largest yacht race? Will he confirm that there will be no reduction in the provision of military search and rescue helicopters following the defence debate? Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the comments of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties which condemned the manpower levels of the Coastguard service, when this Government have provided so much investment in new equipment and technology to ensure that our coastguards are the best in the world?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is correct that the Solent is the busiest part of our coast. There were 851 incidents in that area in 1989, in which more than 1,600 persons were assisted. That was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year. There are carefully laid down criteria for the helicopter cover that is required along our


coastline. No reduction in that will be contemplated and any necessary changes will be made. My hon. Friend is also right to note that although the Opposition constantly tell us about all the cuts, we have, in fact, increased expenditure on the Coastguard service substantially. Compared with the 1983 figure, expenditure has now doubled to £28 million. The coastguards provide an excellent service. As we are approaching the time when most people take their holidays, it is perhaps worth reminding everyone that it is up to each person to take the proper precautions when at the coast.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: All of us who represent maritime constitutencies very much appreciate the work of the Coastguard service. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there will be adequate night cover, following the removal of helicopters from night duty at Leuchars and Fife, which are so important for air-sea rescue searches?

Mr. McLoughlin: As I said earlier, we are satisfied that there is sufficient helicopter cover around our coastline. However, I shall certainly investigate the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised and write to her about it.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I commend the fantastic work carried out by the coastguards around our coastal waters, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still much room for improvement in the general public's understanding of the different sectors that offer search and rescue facilities? We have a tripartite organisational problem with the RNLI, the coastguards and other organisations that provide search and rescue cover. Will my hon. Friend assure me that once the new committee that he has endorsed—a local advisory body to help with the north Devon coastline—has proved its worth, he will replicate it throughout the United Kingdom so that all our coastlines will have a local group that can question and learn from local search and rescue services?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She rightly refers to an idea that she sponsored and which has been taken on board. I shall look closely at the results arrived at by the consultation body. If I find that the idea is worth while I shall consider expanding it to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Ms. Ruddock: In the light of the figures that the Minister has given and the Prime Minister's recent high-profile excursion in a lifeboat, will the Minister tell the House just how many Coastguard stations he has closed? Is not he worried about the closure of the Hartland Coastguard station? Can he confirm that the bridging loans made available to members of staff who were relocated totalled about £200,000, and that for that sum it would have been possible to keep that important Coastguard station open?

Mr. McLoughlin: The number of incidents in the area round the Hartland Coastguard station has declined since the station was closed. I stand by the fact that we have doubled expenditure on the Coastguard service from £14 million in 1983 to approximately £28 million and that the service is currently involved in a four-year programme to modernise its communications and provide computerised data handling equipment. If the Opposition believe that a Coastguard service can be maintained without giving it proper equipment with which to operate, the Government

do not agree. The Government propose to give coastguards the right, modern, effective communications equipment that they need to carry out their jobs.

Leeds-London Rail Service

Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total investment in the electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service.

Mr. Freeman: British Rail puts the total expenditure on electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service at £164.4 million at 1989–90 prices.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great success of electrification in improving customer service? Will he give sympathetic consideration this October to the application by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive to invest its own resources in electrifying the Leeds-Bradford railway, as well as the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, especially as the investment will produce a positive return above the 8 per cent. criterion required for such schemes?

Mr. Freeman: I am aware that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that proposal, along with several other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I intend to visit the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive and authority in September. We shall give the matter careful consideration. I am glad to note that today British Rail has added an option clause to its agreement for the purchase of rolling stock for the Birmingham cross-city service. That will safeguard about 14 trains by under-option for possible use on the extra electrified line.

Mr. Madden: As the Minister's predecessor, in a meeting earlier this year, gave every impression of being extremely sympathetic to electrification of the Bradford-Leeds line, and as there are no doubts about its economic viability, will the Minister pull his finger out and approve the loan to the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority so that it can get on with the work? All sections of the community in Bradford have been pressing for the work to be done for the past six years.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's language is colourful, but I understand the strength of his feeling. He will recall that my predecessor said that a decision would be made once the autumn statement settlement had been announced. I also give him that assurance. I am well aware that the West Yorkshire PTE is seeking only credit approval, not section 56 grant. The scheme appears to be viable, so I give the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members the assurance that the proposal will be considered at the appropriate time when we have the new public expenditure survey settlement.

Mr. Devlin: As my hon. Friend was criticised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for investing too much in the A1, a much-needed transport link for the north and north-east, instead of investing in the railways, does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of the east coast main line and the electrification scheme for the Leeds-Bradford line are two of 10 major schemes which amount to the largest-ever investment in British Rail?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that over the next three years British


Rail investment will be 75 per cent. up in real terms on that for the past three years. London Regional Transport investment will be about double in real terms. There is a substantial increase in investment which is significantly financed by the public sector through grants and borrowings.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister explain slowly, for the benefit of his more stupid and innumerate Back Benchers, that the £164 million for the electrification of the London-Leeds railway line is paid for almost exclusively by farepayers in almost the highest rail fares in Europe, while the £600 million for the upgrading of the A1 trunk road is paid for exclusively by taxpayers? As a colourful accountant, can the Minister explain that discrepancy in the Government's transport policy?

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. The £3.7 billion investment in British Rail over the next three years is financed in four ways: £0.2 billion comes from its cash flow, before depreciation; £1.6 billion comes from grants, not only from central Government, but from passenger transport executives—

Mr. Snape: You bet.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman says, "You bet", but only about £200 million of that £1.6 billion comes from local authorities. One billion pounds comes from loans and £0.9 billion comes from the sale of assets which belong to the taxpayer. I repeat that the vast majority of British Rail investment, which is the largest for 25 years and represents a 75 per cent. increase in real terms, comes from the public sector.

Fishing Vessels

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels.

Mr. Parkinson: We will review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels should it become necessary when the outcome is known of the litigation covering part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 before the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the great concern among Cornish fishermen in particular, following the recent United Kingdom cheating on quota and, more specifically, the problems with the Spanish vessels. May I hope that the Government will resist any review and fight on behalf of those fishermen to protect the quota system? After all, it makes no sense to have a national quota system if quota-hopping is allowed.

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Court of Justice decided that our courts could issue interim injunctions suspending an Act of Parliament. It did not decide that the courts had to do so. Therefore, the Government will argue before our courts that, although they have the discretion, they should not use it and we shall argue strongly the major case that our registration arrangements should be allowed under European law. We shall fight both cases hard.

Mr. Harris: Although I congratulate the Government on the way in which they are fighting these cases, both the short-term one in the House of Lords and the long-term

one in the European Court of Justice, does my right hon. Friend accept that 31 of those former Spanish vessels are back on our register through what is widely regarded as a loophole in the present registration procedure—they appear to be financed through loans or mortgages from Spain? Will he look at that problem and give an assurance that the Government will do everything in their power to deal once and for all with the scourge of quota-hopping?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, originally more than 85 vessels applied for registration. Several have been registered, although I do not think that it is as many as 31. My figure is 26. Nevertheless, I shall look at the matter again. We are examining each case carefully and we are determined that only properly owned vessels should be allowed to appear on our register.

Dr. Godman: I see that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench. After the hearing that is taking place now in another place, may we have a statement from him about the judgment because it is of major interest both constitutionally and to our fishermen? Might one of the implications of the judgment be the end of national quotas and the allocation of quotas being determined in Brussels by European Commission officials?

Mr. Parkinson: We should look only at the two issues. The issue before the House of Lords is the narrow one of whether it wishes to use a power that the European Court of Justice says it has. The major case about our registration requirements has still to be heard and I understand that there will be no decision on that until the end of the year. The hearing in the House of Lords is about a technical matter, an interim measure, and I am advised that the full hearing will not take place until the end of the year.

Electronic Road Pricing

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to publish the preliminary studies being undertaken by his Department into the feasibility of introducing electronic road pricing in parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Parkinson: My Department is not currently undertaking such studies. We are, however, continuing to keep a close watch on the use of road pricing in other countries and on the development of the relevant technology.

Mr. Taylor: As the cost to business of road congestion in and around London is about £15 billion a year, at the risk of being skinned alive by my constituents in Esher, may I ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider throwing a road-pricing ring round the old Greater London council boundary? We must overcome the problem of congestion in our capital city, and some of us must make the sacrifice. Technology appears to work in other countries, and it is worth bringing it in here.

Mr. Parkinson: I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend in which countries the technology works. As far as I know, Singapore is the only one. There are toll booths in Norway, but they are designed not for road pricing, but for revenue raising. They are not intended to discourage people from using roads. In recent weeks the Dutch, who had been leading the way, abandoned their experiment and


the Swedes have voted—if I may coin a phrase—not to go down that road. Road pricing, although intellectually attractive, is incredibly complicated to implement, would be unfair and is not a readily available option.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Pub Bombings

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case with (a) Lord Lane and (b) Lord Donaldson.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Any discussion which I might have with the judiciary as a Law Officer would be confidential and not disclosed.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Attorney-General aware that for some time a number of senior judges have been going round quietly saying that the Guildford Four and the Maguire family had their convictions quashed only on a technicality and were guilty all along? Does he agree that that brings the judicial process further into disrepute? It is about time that we had a resignation or two so that those gentleman can say out loud what they can say at the moment only in the privacy of their clubs.

The Attorney-General: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. The remainder of the question does not arise.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing could be more deplorable than for the Crown's principal Law Officer to go round discussing with judges cases that may appear before the courts again? Is not it essential that there should be proper separation between the judicial and Executive functions, even those that exist for my right hon. and learned Friend? Will he ensure that he never speaks about any live case to any judge in his official capacity?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. My responsibilities for controlling the administration of sectors of the criminal and civil law would, on occasion, make discussion with the judiciary appropriate.

Mr. Fraser: Would not it be wrong for the Attorney-General to discuss matters of this controversial nature with the judges? Is not the right way to go about it—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has views on it—to make a submission to the May inquiry, because it is equally clear that unless Ludovic Kennedy or my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) writes a book, the BBC makes a programme, and a police force holds an inquiry, some miscarriages of justice will not be put right? Is not it time the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave evidence to the inquiry?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I set up the inquiry with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I await Sir John May's report of the first phase with great interest. He has promised it as soon as possible.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no proposals to discuss any such case with any of the judiciary. but—in response to a hypothetical question—I certainly do not propose to fetter the discretion that any holder of my office has, in the interests of the administration of justice, to do what he considers proper.

Legal Aid

Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for one lawyer to represent clients in criminal cases on legal aid.

The Attorney-General: On 19 June Standing Committee D, with Government support, added a new clause to the Courts and Legal Services Bill under which the Lord Chancellor would be unable to say that a defendant in criminal proceedings should have only one lawyer to represent him. The Government hope to be able to extend this provision to include cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal when the House considers the Bill on Report.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Consumers Association about this provision. I hope that he will influence the Committee to ensure that the public have a proper choice and that enough lawyers are available to represent defendants in court cases.

The Attorney-General: The Government have made it clear that there is no intention to use the power to fix fees under the legal aid scheme to require that any litigant shall be represented by only one legal representative. That will become clear when we reach Report stage.

Mr. Skinner: Why is not the Attorney-General saying that this is a case of restrictive practices and overmanning and that the Government will weed out those elements? Instead, he says exactly the opposite. If it had been a trade union, the boot would have been on the other foot.

The Attorney-General: I shall not discuss with the hon. Gentleman where he puts his boot—[ Interruption.] It is generally in his mouth. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet if one of his trade union members had not been permitted the legal representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the day had decided—[Interruption.] Just for once, will the hon. Gentleman listen to an answer so that others can hear it? Let us suppose that one of his trade union members had been denied the representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the time—perhaps even a Conservative one—had decreed that he should have only one. I wonder what he would say then.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nearly always necessary for there to be someone arranging for witnesses and trying to organise the times when they can come, and someone taking a note of the evidence? The Opposition would be the first to complain if they were involved in any sort of criminal trial that had to be delayed day after day merely because there was no one there to help the barrister on his feet.

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had expressed the same thought, perhaps rather less amply.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General when the application for legal aid by Mr. McCready, of 5 Botsham house, Newcomen street, London SE1 will be dealt with.

The Attorney-General: A number of regrettable errors in the handling of Mr. McCready's application for legal


aid delayed considerably the issue of a certificate. But I am pleased to say that an unlimited legal aid certificate was issued on 28 June.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Attorney-General agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Is the delay in this case—a delay, as he well knows, of more than a year—typical of the legal aid administration? Is he aware that solicitors are fed up with the delay and that many people just cannot get an answer? It is only because I have written to the Lord Chancellor about this case that there appears to be any movement at all.

The Attorney-General: No, it is regrettable but it is certainly not typical. The Legal Aid Board has already increased from 50 to 63 per cent. the number of legal aid applications that are processed within six weeks of receipt, and it has set itself tough targets for the immediate future.

Government Documents

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of Government documents are lost each year (a) unaccountably, (b) as a result of fire or water damage, or (c) otherwise; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: No information is held centrally about this. To comply with their duties under the Public Records Act 1958, Departments are obliged to ensure that their documentary records are properly preserved.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Attorney-General agree that the majority of documents which disappear, shall we say, do so because of Government secrecy? For example, does he know that only 5 per cent. of Department of Trade and Industry documents reach his office and that 90 per cent. are destroyed?

The Attorney-General: No. What the hon. Gentleman describes as the Government's policy of secrecy certainly does not lead to the loss of any documents. By framing his question in that way the hon. Gentleman has proceeded, by fire and water, to a rather expensive platform for denying justice to a Government who have so notably liberalised the Official Secrets Act, for example.

Mr. Favell: While on the subject of documents going astray, will the Attorney-General look into the question of the documents that appear to be going astray at the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers? It has been reported that there will be a private investigation at the NUM before the police are called in. As that did not apply to Guinness or Barlow Clowes why is it applying at the NUM?

The Attorney-General: I have no responsibility for what is taking place or what has taken place at the National Union of Mineworkers. I certainly do not wish to emulate its representative in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), by straying into areas that are outside my responsibility.

Supreme Court of Appeal

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy on the establishment of an independent Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Attorney-General: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the present structure of the appellate courts.

Mr. Allen: The Attorney-General will be aware, as are most hon. Members, that the people who are in prison for the Birmingham bombings are probably or very likely innocent. He is in an embarrassing position because he does not know how to get those people out of gaol. Would not it be better to have a totally independent and further Court of Appeal, so that the incarceration of innocent people could be dealt with without giving rise to the embarrassment which the Government obviously feel at keeping those people in prison?

The Attorney-General: Without making any comment on the assertions with which the hon. Gentleman began his question, I must observe that any change of the sort that he envisages is a matter for the Lord Chancellor or, conceivably, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but not for me. Any judicial process depends upon the evidential material that is presented to it and upon the limits of its jurisdiction. The remit of Sir John May's inquiry is broad enough to consider whether it is desirable to change the way in which our courts deal with what are treated as appeals on referral from the Home Secretary. That is as far as I can take the matter at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Peru

Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send aid to Peru in respect of the recent earthquake and drought.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Following an appeal from the United Nations Secretary-General last month, we are making a bilateral contribution of $250,000 for immediate relief, channelled through the United Nations Disaster Relief Office which is co-ordinating donors' responses. This is on top of 0.120 million ecu, or £86,000, emergency assistance for earthquake victims, and 5.88 million ecu, or £4.2 million, of emergency food aid being provided from the European Community programme.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister confirm reports that about 3.5 million of the poorest farmers in that part of the world have lost their crops as a result of this catastrophe? What are her Department's long-term plans for assisting such farmers, especially in preparation for next year's crop and thereafter?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot yet confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave, but obviously we wait anxiously for news of what is going on. I think that he realises that Peru is a middle-income country and therefore has not figured largely in our aid programme, although we give help through technical co-operation and do much in terms of training, some of it in agriculture. When we know the position better, I can examine it again.
I emphasise that we seek to concentrate our bilateral aid funds on the Commonwealth and the poorest countries. Therefore, although we will be generous with


emergency and relief aid, we feel that it is right to do that for the poorest countries, rather than for a country that has a per capita GNP of $1,440.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: What difficulties are being encountered in getting our emergency aid through to the areas that have suffered from the earthquakes, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of the newly elected Government of Peru in exercising their democratic mandate in those areas, owing to the activity of the Maoist terrorists of Sendero Luminoso?

Mrs. Chalker: We are well aware of the difficulties that Sendero Luminoso and other terrorists make for the Government in that country. I am not aware of specific difficulties in getting the aid through, but the new Government—under president-elect Fujimori—have a great deal to do, including sorting out a debt of $1.5 billion: those are substantial arrears.

AIDS

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have now been made available by his Department to help combat the spread of AIDS in developing countries.

Mrs. Chalker: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 18 June, which noted a number of financial commitments totalling £29.39 million. Since then a further £250,000 has been committed to support another national programme.

Mr. Field: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of reading an article in The Sunday Times of 1 July which outlined the effect of AIDS on African leaders, and the need to combat AIDS where there are such cultural traditions among the poor as farmers exchanging their wives and daughters for fertiliser? As the AIDS epidemic has such a serious effect on the tiny percentage of African leaders who have had a formal education, and now that aid agencies throughout the world are turning their attention to the eastern bloc countries, what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that Africa avoids that double jeopardy?

Mrs. Chalker: I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend referred. However willing we are—and we are very willing—to do more to try to curb the HIV epidemic, we can do nothing without the commitment of Heads of Government and people at every level of life in those countries. A much wider use of condoms is necessary everywhere. In countries that already have high levels of HIV, the spread is bound to be far greater than any that we may have anticipated some years ago. It is no good simply asking for fidelity; we must persuade people to take effective practical action.

Mr. Tony Banks: What requests has the Minister received from African countries for resources to combat the spead of AIDS? Does she accept that the amount of money that she spoke about is minuscule, given the plague-like proportion of the spread of AIDS, especially in east Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: We are already helping Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Zimbabwe, and we are delighted to note the positive contribution being made in

Zimbabwe by Dr. Stamp, the new Minister of Health, in increasing public awareness and action. It is not simply a question of money, although we have greatly increased the amounts that we are spending, and will continue to do so. We are also working with advisers in those countries to ensure that they get their programmes right and that their publicity is fearless in putting over to everyone just what a problem this is. It is not the supply of condoms that is a problem; it is getting people to use them.

Mr. Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some figures show that 45 per cent. of the adult population in cities and towns is sub-Saharan Africa have AIDS? If that is the case, what discussions has she had with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning health screening for people who come to Britain from those countries?

Mrs. Chalker: My responsibilities are not only to try to help to prevent the spread of AIDS but to educate, through our overseas aid programmes. The unique TASO project has started in Uganda—The Aids Support Organisation project—which is counselling people. That is the way forward. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is supporting action taken by my Department in those countries.

Natural History Museum

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his inquiries about the effect of the changes in the natural history museum on research work of importance to his Department.

Mrs. Chalker: I believe that the changes at the natural history museum should have no serious impact on the ODA's programmes, including our research work. The ODA's natural resources institute, which has close links with the museum and will continue to need its collaboration, will be keeping this matter under review. So will I.

Mr. Dalyell: After her welcome visit in September, when she will see some of the 25.5 million specimens in spirits, some collected by Captain Cook, will the right hon. Lady require of the museum that it makes no changes in curatorial arrangements, in the light of the many letters from throughout the world from experts concerned with global changes in climate and other such matters?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see that nothing irrevocable is done. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I between us will approach any changes that take place in the natural history museum in that spirit. It is important that the museum concentrates its efforts on the six scientific programmes that I shall be visiting in September. I was glad to talk to the associate director, Mr. Peake, abou this and about what it is aiming to do. As the museum accepts, it cannot do everything at all times. Therefore, we must get its research efforts concentrated on these vital issues.

Women (Adult Education)

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the overseas aid programme provides support for adult education for women in developing countries.

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, we provide such support in a variety of ways: as component parts of ODA projects, through in-country training and training on courses in British institutions, through distance learning, and in joint ventures with non-governmental organisations and in our contribution to the United Nations development fund for women, UNIFEM.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in too many parts of the world, opportunities for women are fewer because of their inadequate education? Therefore, the reason for adult education of women is that much stronger. Has the world conference on education for all, held in Thailand earlier this year, led to any advances, and can we support such projects?

Mrs. Chalker: The education for all conference in Thailand was valuable because it called on Governments to give a higher priority to basic education. That should

enable us, and other donor Governments, to support adult literacy for women to a greater extent. We have to consider overseas Government priorities because without their support, we cannot proceed, and it is hard to persuade them to give full education to women in their teens, so that we do not have to catch up with adult education, which will be needed for the next 20 years.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister give us the number and percentage of women participating in ODA training programmes in developing countries? Is she ready to encourage those Governments who are reluctant to nominate women to support a quota system so that 20 to 30 per cent. of awards from the ODA are allocated to women?

Mrs. Chalker: Like the hon. Lady, I want a higher proportion of women to come forward, and that is why I have been encouraging overseas Governments to nominate more women. Some 20 per cent. of the nominations for awards go to women, which is an improvement, and the number of women receiving training under the technical co-operation training programme is improving all the time.
I cannot give the hon. Lady the other figures without notice, as she well knows.

Aviation and Maritime Security

The following question stood upon the Paper:

Mr. Michael Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve maritime and aviation security.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): We are determined to continue to take whatever measures are necessary to improve maritime and aviation security. The Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will strengthen existing aviation security powers and introduce new powers in relation to maritime security.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I report on the investigation into the incident at Heathrow involving Dr. Jim Swire. A senior investigator from the aviation security inspectorate, who is a former superintendant in the Metropolitan police, has interviewed all those involved in the incident. Although there are differences in the detail of the incident as recalled by Dr. Swire and his travelling companion and by British Airways staff, the investigator's conclusions are, first, that it is beyond reasonable doubt that British Airways were aware that Dr. Swire and his travelling companion were relatives of Lockerbie victims when they bought their tickets, when they checked in, when their hold baggage was searched and when they were on the flight; and, secondly, that there are grounds for believing that British Airways staff, knowing who Dr. Swire was, were insufficiently stringent in checking the radio.
I accept that, because British Airways staff knew exactly who Dr. Swire was, it was understandable that they should conclude that he was not planning to take an explosive device on board his flight. Nevertheless, I am asking my chief inspector of aviation security to write to all airports and airlines to emphasise that they must be especially careful in checking electrical items, irrespective of to whom they belong.

Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy—indeed, heartfelt condolences—to Dr. Swire for the tragic loss of his daughter in the Lockerbie disaster. Although he may have been a little unwise to go as public as he did, and in such a dramatic way, about the results of his escapade, he may have done the travelling public a service by identifying a weak link in the security chain.
Is my right hon. Friend happy that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, now before Parliament, will give him all the powers that he needs to ensure that individual airlines and companies involved in services at airports can be kept in check? Are those powers strong enough for my right hon. Friend to ensure that the necessary security procedures are followed? Does he acknowledge that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. security?

Mr. Parkinson: I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Dr. Swire. I have met him on a number of occasions, and know that he is a genuine person who is desperately keen to ensure that aviation security is improved. The Bill will be useful when the House passes it, and I hope that there will be no more filibustering of the sort that we experienced 10 days ago. Not only will the Bill give me the power to give directions to a wider range of people; it will also give me the power to enforce them—

including taking such action if necessary as, for example, closing airports, grounding airlines or putting directions on others who serve aircraft and airports. The Bill will be useful and it will provide the necessary additional powers.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right to say that it is virtually impossible to guarantee 100 per cent. security. However, that is no reason why we should not use every possible method open to us to reduce the risks.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Secretary of State realise that his explanation is both singularly silly and singularly worrying? Is he seriously suggesting that we should accept that, if someone is known to the authorities, that means that they are safe? Could not a device be planted on such a person on just that premise? Does he accept—I am sure that he does, privately—that we are in no way reassured by what we have heard today and that we hope that there will be much more stringent action in future?

Mr. Parkinson: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been following events, or he would not have made that remark. First, Dr. Swire admits that he was one of the percentage of passengers selected. He was taken, his luggage was searched, and the radio was found. Dr. Swire admitted that he packed his bag himself. Those are his words, not mine. The individual making the investigation realised who Dr. Swire was, and she is, as I said, open to criticism for not taking such stringent measures as she might otherwise have done. However, she saw the suitcase and the radio, and Dr. Swire confirmed that he had packed the case—so there was no question of Dr. Swire having been duped.

Mr. David Wilshire: As one of the Members of Parliament who represents part of Heathrow airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up some confusion, for the sake of those of my constituents who undertake airport checks. Will he confirm that there was not a failure to detect a real bomb, and that Dr. Swire's action was not part of a genuine suicide attempt, for which staff are trained to be on the look-out? Will my right hon. Friend confirm also that the luggage in question was not unaccompanied, which is very different from the Lockerbie situation? Given that my constituents have an unenviable job to do, does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who seek to score cheap party points over such an issue should tell my constituents whether or not they should show humanity and compassion towards an individual who so tragically lost a daughter?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I will confirm that there was not a failure. The plane involved was one of a number selected at random each week for investigation. Ten per cent. of all hold baggage on those flights is checked. In this instance, the luggage was checked, questions were asked, and the radio was found. The young woman concerned, knowing the identity of the person carrying the radio, took the view that Dr. Swire was unlikely to want to blow up himself and the aeroplane. She is open to criticism, but she did not have the benefit of the hindsight that we have now. I thought that Opposition Members would accept that she tried to use her judgment and to be understanding in a difficult situation.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I speak as someone who, some years ago, travelled on an aircraft on which there was a live bomb. Is the Secretary of State


aware that several people have already served prison sentences for carrying dummy or hoax bombs into aerodromes and airports and on to aircraft? Should not there be a common standard of justice, to ensure an end to nonsense of the kind that was perpetrated at Heathrow last week, when intercontinental flights were delayed by as much as three hours?

Mr. Parkinson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, enforcing the law is a matter for the police. The police questioned him about his future conduct, and, in the very special circumstances they decided not to take further action. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a common standard, and that it must be enforced.

Mr. Patrick Ground: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in air transport the primary risk does not come from passengers who carry their own luggage and whose identity is known to those who undertake searches of them, but that progress needs to be made with securing greater international co-operation in improving security generally?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. In the main, the real danger does not come from accompanied baggage, when the person carrying the bomb travels on the plane, but from attempts to put bombs on planes on which the persons planting them do not intend to travel. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is vital to improve international co-operation. That is why my predecessor and the American Secretary of Transportation took the initiative after Lockerbie of calling on the International Civil Aviation Organisation to draw up much tighter international standards. We continue to work for improved standards in international forums.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be easier for us to accept the explanation that Doctor Swire was recognised if there had not been a fairly lengthy hiatus between his announcement that he had tried to put a fake bomb on board and British Airways explanation that he had been recognised? Even if one accepts that statement at face value, is the Secretary of State not aware that he raises doubts in my mind when he says that the radio was discovered by the random checking of baggage? Why was the radio not picked up by the X-ray machine when the hand baggage went through? If he will forgive me for raising the matter, what action is he taking about an Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who disgracefully said that a hoax bomb was in his red box?

Mr. Parkinson: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know studies these matters carefully, that this was not hand baggage. It was hold baggage. It was detected as part of the 10 per cent. of hold baggage that is searched on selected aircraft.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, my hon. Friend has already made it clear that he regrets the incident. I ought to point out that the same rules were applied in his case as would be applied in everyone else's case. When he made his foolish remark about his case being full of bombs, the supervisor was immediately called. He was taken to a private part of the examination area and

asked to repeat the remark. He did not do so. He retracted it. Had my hon. Friend repeated the remark, the police would have been informed and he would have been interviewed by them.
Last year, there were more than 700 of these incidents at Heathrow and Gatwick alone, when jokesters—members of the public—made such claims once but withdrew them when pressed. My point is that the rules that apply to my hon. Friend apply to all those who travel and who make that sort of foolish remark.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is not the ludicrous difficulty that we face that, although it may be possible to test the degree of risk in particular circumstances in a complex operation, as any modern airport is, one has to remember that there is a finite limit to the tolerance of the public when it comes to the delays and inconvenience to which they are prepared to be subjected regularly, if we are to squeeze out the last possible risks?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Our objective is 100 per cent. screening of all hold baggage. We have written to all airlines and to BAA asking them to come forward with their plans for reaching that target. We recognise that our airports were not designed for this level of search and that there are substantial logistical problems. However, that is the Goverment's declared aim and we intend to pursue it.
It was reported in the press when I wrote to the airlines that some of them were thinking of not co-operating. The point about the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill is that they will not have a choice about not co-operating; directions will be issued and they will be capable of being enforced. We are working towards 100 per cent. screening of hold baggage, but it will take some time.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the last 10 years, those who use Heathrow airport every week—as many hon. Members certainly do—find that delays of up to 30 minutes are not uncommon when one is being screened for security? In those circumstances, the weaknesses and deficiencies of attempting to achieve 100 per cent. security become obvious. Tempers become frayed and people grow very agitated when they realise that they may miss their flight.

Mr. Parkinson: I recognise that there is always a conflict between getting an aeroplane away on time and getting it away safely. People become irritated and think that the security checks are unnecessary until there is an incident, at which point they appreciate the importance of security checks.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am still worried about airport security. Will the Minister now state to what extent the security forces are protected by being authorised to carry arms? Are they armed at present or are they to be armed following the passage of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, which we hope will be enacted next time?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not want to go into too much detail about our security arrangements, because that is a very good way of telling people who might be tempted to get around them what they face. There are armed police on duty at Heathrow and, as the hon. Gentleman knows,


exercises are staged from time to time, with a full alert and fully armed soldiers. Our security arrangements do include the provision of armed security.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In his discussions about attempting to reach the 100 per cent. target for security, has the Secretary of State discussed with the various airlines and the British Airports Authority the need for funding? In trying to reach that target, it will be essential to increase the number of personnel who work at our airports and the number of machines that are used to X-ray baggage.

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, and one of the difficulties, especially in the south-east, is the recruiting and training of suitable staff. Before someone can be accepted for a security job, his employment records, going back over many years, have to he checked. In an area where there is almost full employment, people are not prepared to be subjected to that search if they can obtain another job. The difficulty lies in recruiting people and keeping them; the problem lies not in a shortage of funds but in getting the right number of staff. As the hon. Lady knows, from time to time people have to be flown from less busy airports to help out at Heathrow in peak periods.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, 18 days ago, four hon. Members flew from London to Leningrad via Frankfurt? While the hold baggage was checked right through to Leningrad, there were no transit facilities for passengers at Frankfurt, as a consequence of which the passengers had to leave and re-enter going through all the customs and ticketing procedures. That gives members of the public an opportunity to leave their hold baggage to go right through and then to leave the airport entirely. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a thoroughly dangerous procedure at Frankfurt? Can he confirm that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will ensure that, if anything like that happened in the United Kingdom, he could stop it immediately?

Mr. Parkinson: One of the main aims of the new arrangements post-Lockerbie is to separate incoming and outgoing passengers and transit passengers. We recognise that that is important, as opportunities could arise for exchanging luggage bombs and weapons. We are therefore concentrating on this separation of incoming and outgoing passengers at every airport. We think that that is a major step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend referred to transit baggage. As he probably knows, any transit baggage going through Heathrow on American airlines is automatically the subject of examination even though it goes straight into the hold.

Mr. John Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that we are fed up with continually being assured by Conservative Secretaries of State for Transport that our airport security is adequate, when time and time again its inadequacy is exposed by the press and others, such as Dr. Swire? Is he aware that, by limiting the inquiry into Dr. Swire's action and by blaming the operator staff, he is behaving in a manner that is typical of his Department, which is always shifting the blame? That is in sharp contrast to the Americans' full investigation into their Government authority's role in security matters—an approach that has been resisted by

the Department. Is not the real lesson of this case that we require a full inspection of luggage, which is expensive and which takes time, but for which we called in our amendment—which the Government resisted—to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill?
May I impress on the Secretary of State the fact that the relatives of those killed in the Lucherbie and Marchioness tragedies welcome the Department's announcement today of an inquiry into a possible injustice arising out of the Titanic affair 73 years ago but that they would like a full, open, independent inquiry into more recent tragedies, which the Department of Transport is avoiding?

Mr. Parkinson: We have just heard a typical rant from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He is always getting fed up about something, while other honest people, like the security staff at Heathrow, have the daily business of examining the luggage of hundreds of thousands of people. They do not sit there like him, hoping that something will go wrong so that they can criticise. They get on with the business of trying to make our aviation more secure.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's remark about the presidential commission and full inspection of luggage, Lockerbie is at the moment the subject of a huge criminal investigation including the investigation of security arrangements at Heathrow. It is also the subject of an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and it will be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. I announced last week that the Government exceptionally are going to fund legal representation for the relatives of those who died in that dreadful accident.
I want finally to deal with the hon. Gentleman's feeble joke about the Titanic.

Mr. Prescott: It was no joke.

Mr. Parkinson: It was made to a member of my staff by Dr. Swire at about 1 pm today. There will be a marine accident investigation branch investigation about the Titanic. That will not be a huge full public inquiry; it will involve just the marine accident investigation branch. Exactly the same kind of investigation is already being conducted into Lockerbie by the air accident investigation branch. The hon. Gentleman's point was a total and utter non-point.
So as far as the Department is concerned, I want to repeat what I said earlier—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is really interested in aviation security, perhaps he should stop his noisy colleagues from filibustering on that vital Bill and perhaps we could get it through Parliament and help make Britain's airports safer.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Redundancy (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973 (Revocation) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the School Boards (Financial Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1277) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.


That the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1020) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Opposition Day

[I8TH ALLOTTED DAY, FIRST PART]

Environmental Policy

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on environmental policy in the name of Plaid Cymru. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the current levels of pollution in the Irish Sea, particularly the dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge, and the discharge of untreated sewage, and is not satisfied with current measures to tackle the problem; notes the decision of the European Court of Justice to prosecute the United Kingdom Government for failure to comply with European Community Directives on the quality of bathing water; and calls on the Government to commission an independent survey into the effects of pollution in the Irish Sea and to act on its findings without delay.
As the House will be aware, the gift of these minority party debates is organised through our colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party. As hon. Members of that party sit behind me in the Chamber, I begin by thanking them, as members of the senior minority party in the House for helping to facilitate this debate.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On a subject in which we have a common interest.

Dr. Thomas: Indeed—I want to explain why we selected environmental policy as the topic for the debate.
We believe that concern about the environment is the major issue facing the Government and the House. The House will notice that our motion concentrates on marine pollution in the Irish sea. We intend to ask for a response from the Welsh Office and from the Government about that tonight. We will be pushing our motion to a Division because of our concern about the inadequate response so far from the Government on that issue.
I might go so far as to suggest that the Government of the Isle of Man have shown greater initiative on that issue than the Northern Ireland Office, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office. That should get me into sufficient trouble with all the Departments and parties in the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland scientists are excellent people, and their work is very good.

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for defending the integrity of the Scottish Office. I should not want to impugn it. The scientists have been very good. Marine scientists have provided us with excellent advice on the issue. We need intergovernmental action. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an ideal subject on which to convene an intergovernmental conference similar to the one on the North sea. It would provide a forum not only for scientific opinion to be presented on the extent of chemical, sewage and radioactive pollution of the North sea but to initiate joint action.
Marine pollution is a sensitive issue in terms of the marine ecosystem. It clearly relates to food safety and the fishing industry and to the sensitive issue of bathing safety and the health of swimmers and tourists on Welsh beaches. That has clear implications for Ireland, Wales and the English coastline because of our emphasis on tourism and marine recreation. Members of Parliament, scientists and others who highlight marine pollution and dirty beaches are often accused of making political points that can appear negative in terms of marketing our tourist industry. I put that matter straight once and for all. We are deeply distressed about the level of pollution in the Irish sea and other coastal waters around Wales, and we shall not cease to draw attention to the issue as long as there is clear scientific evidence that such pollution exists and that it creates a potential risk to health.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not it a matter of shame that only one bay in Wales, Pembrey, has merited a European Community blue flag?

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I had the misfortune to officiate at the opening ceremony of a sewage outfall in my constituency last year. At that ceremony, I was faithfully promised by the water authority, now Wales Water—Dwr Cymru—that, within a year at the most, a blue flag would be flying over that beach. I have not yet seen it. I emphasise that point because there is a clear obligation on the Government to clean up marine pollution, as it affects the tourist industry. Indeed, there are international obligations on governments that are responsible for maritime pollution. We look not only to the Government but to statutory undertakings such as the National Rivers Authority for their assessment of the pollution in our estuaries and rivers, which lead into the seas and cause maritime pollution. In that context, we should look to the Welsh Office, in particular, to take a firmer lead on maritime pollution and other related pollution issues in Wales.
Maritime pollution is a good example, because all the rubbish that we produce, dispose of and dump ends up in the sea. I refer not only to the rubbish that we produce but to the rubbish that other maritime countries produce. I am not suggesting for one moment that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is more susceptible because it is an island, but my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue. He hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to concentrate further on his proposals for cleaning up the Irish sea. Maritime pollution provides us with a case study of all the environmental problems that we face in Wales. I am concerned that we are not doing our bit to help to prevent the major international ecological disasters that now face us.
The Welsh Office has not done its bit in terms of environmental policy. The Welsh Office has been with us for 25 years—we often imagine where we might be without it—yet it has not had a Minister responsible for the environment who would give his or her time and energies completely to that issue. Indeed, at official level, the Department does not have a co-ordinating mechanism to bring together all its responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I invite the Secretary of State, in his first major public response to us in the House, to acknowledge that he is the Secretary of State for the Welsh environment and that, along with his hon. Friends the Members for

Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), he will take seriously his responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I hope that the Department will produce an initiative on environmental policy that will co-ordinate all the activities of the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State for Wales must see himself as the guardian of the Welsh environment in all its aspects.
I should like the Welsh Office not merely to contribute to the general debate on environmental issues, which is conducted at the level—

Mr. Win Griffiths: On the point about the responsibilities of the Welsh Office for the environment, and especially for the aquatic and coastal environment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that the Department of the Environment and the Crown Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the use of dredgers off the Welsh coast, which is causing the beaches from Southern Down to Sker Point in my constituency to be denuded of sand, leaving nothing but mud heaps?

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for raising that issue, which shows yet again the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on activities that affect the marine environment.
I hope that this debate will establish that the Secretary of State is taking overall responsibility for this matter. It is not enough for the Department to contribute to the current process of producing a White Paper for the Government as a whole; I expect to see the Welsh Office produce its own equivalent, as happens in other areas of policy, such as education, social policy and—dare I say it—for the health service. There is a Welsh Office face in all those spheres—although it is not always an acceptable face—but the same is not true for the environment. That Welsh Office face would enable those who are concerned, such as the statutory bodies, the local authorities and those involved in the strong environmental movement in Wales to make their representations directly to the Welsh Office and to ensure that the Department is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.
After all, the Welsh Office is the Department of the Environment for Wales. It has most, but not all, of the relevant functions of the Department of the Environment. However, it is also the Department which is responsible for the national parks. At the moment, the Countryside Commission is undertaking a major review of the national parks. Although the initial report will be made to the Countryside Commission, it is important that the Welsh Office should be seen as the Department that takes any decisions that affect the structure of the national parks in Wales.
The Welsh Office is also the Department responsible for the activities of local government. Its role is therefore to give a lead to local government in Wales through its policies on the environment. I am thinking especially of waste disposal in local areas, the separation of waste and the availability of waste for recycling. The Welsh Office should be giving a lead to the local authorities and providing small-scale funding to encourage projects that will enable local authorities to tackle such responsibilities in their localities.
More than that, however, the Welsh Office should be giving a much higher priority to environmental policy in its own research budget. Much excellent environmental


research is already carried out in Wales. Happily, a great deal of it is done at my University college of North Wales at Bangor. I welcome the announcement last week by the Minister of State that the new central administration of the Countryside Council for Wales will be located at Bangor in the offices of the Nature Conservancy Council. There was great demand to locate the offices in other parts of Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would have loved to have it at Aberystwyth. I can tell him that the town council in Dolgellau wanted it.

Mr. Anderson: Bala wanted it, too.

Dr. Thomas: I should not speak about Bala, although it is relevant to the debate on the aquatic environment because it has the largest inland lake in Wales. I must get on with my speech.
I welcome the announcement that the centre will be at Bangor. It will enable the centre to work alongside the excellent unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology which recently produced a document on pollution in Wales for those of us who attended its official re-launch earlier this year. Research has been carried out into acidification, deposition of nitrogen and other aspects of environmental pollution. Those studies represent a high quality of international research in Wales which is relevant to Wales and beyond Wales.
The scientists who work at the unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and other experts on environmental policy with whom I have spoken emphasise that they are always short of funding. They often operate on short-term contracts. Where they have longer-term contracts, funding is sometimes inadequate to maintain existing databases. In environmental science where short-term projects produce interesting results it is important to maintain the database perhaps for 10 years. That is the time scale on which interesting, relevant scientific results may appear.
I ask the Secretary of State specifically to examine the research budget of his Department and its priorities. He should ask himself whether the minuscule proportion of his Department's budget which is spent on research is adequate. He knows the figures, because he and his colleagues have answered parliamentary questions on the matter recently. About 1 or 2 per cent. of the Department's budget is spent on research. For a Department which spends £4 billion of public money in Wales, clearly that is not enough. The Department cannot simply say that the Department of the Environment already funds research in Bangor. That is true and we are grateful for it. The Scottish Office has funded other aspects of hill farming in Wales and we welcome that. But as the lead territorial Department, the Welsh Office should increase its research budget.
In the present context of high priority for environmental issues, a doubling of the Welsh Office budget for research on the environment is the least that we can expect in response to the debate. I know that the Secretary of State is about to respond to me, and I am sure that he will take that suggestion on board.
It is important not only to examine the Welsh Office programme of research but to consider how the research that we undertake in Wales can be valuable in

understanding the international implications of environmental changes. The nature of the country, its geology and topography makes Wales an ideal area in which to study climatic and environmental changes.
The Secretary of State will be aware that, within a radius of 30 or 40 miles of the new office of the Countryside Council for Wales, there are major sites of special scientific interest which include marine sites and sites where alpine ecology can be studied, such as Snowdonia and other upland areas. Within Wales it is possible to study the impact on the Welsh environment of overall climatic changes. For that reason, it is important that Wales should make a direct contribution to international research.
It is a matter not just of contributing to environmental research and assessing our environment, but of action research—in other words, of changing the form of activity which is polluting. I want to consider several sources of pollution. In recent years the farming industry in Wales gradually but continually has been reducing its fertilisers to prevent pollution. Only last week, at the royal show at Stoneleigh, we were discussing the substantial shortfall inorganic produce from the farming industry to supermarkets and the food industry.

Mr. Anderson: Organic food is too expensive.

Dr. Thomas: It is true that there is a 15 per cent. mark-up on premium quality organic Welsh lamb. If the hon. Gentleman were to taste it more often, he would understand why. It is tastier than the lamb that I suspect he usually eats.

Dr. Kim Howells: What if my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is a vegetarian?

Dr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is a vegetarian.

Dr. Howells: I did not say that I was a vegetarian.

Dr. Thomas: Let me get on with my speech.
There is an opportunity for a substantial switch to organic farming in the hills in Wales. There is an opening in the market. The Minister has an opportunity to improve the perceived quality of Welsh products. After all, much of our farmland is grassland with a low level of fertiliser input, so the step to a greener farming industry in Wales is only a small one. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will have something to say about that if he has the chance to speak. We have an opportunity to reduce soil pollution from nitrogen fertiliser at the same time as developing quality products from our agriculture industry.
All our manufacturing and extracting industries, particularly quarrying and mining, have a strong negative impact on the environment. Wales has put up with industrial processes which have created employment and unique communities—certainly in mining and quarrying—but which have also created environmental hazards and caused disasters with a cost to human life and young lives. Wales has a legacy of environmentally damaging industries in our economy.
I say advisedly to Welsh Office Ministers and the House that when in future we look for inward investment in Wales we must ensure that we expect standards of environmental cleanliness as high as those that would be


expected elsewhere. The old argument that it is tolerable to place environmentally unfriendly activities, such as nuclear activities, in remote areas or chemical reprocessing in not-so-remote areas because of the levels of employment and unemployment has gone. We must ensure that we have a green environment which is resource balanced and economically active, based on the ability of the environment to attract industries which are themselves environmentally friendly.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is just such an urgent case before us now? If the Secretary of State for Wales looks north from his window in the great fortress of the Welsh Office, he will see the first hills of Wales at Taffs Well. There is a historic site of special scientific interest which at this moment is under threat from quarrying. That is repeated right through Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that matter seriously when it is put before him, because it is a precious area of scientific interest.

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I may have visited that place during a recent by-election in which he was involved. I am aware of the impact of opencast quarrying because there is a lot of opencast slate mining in my constituency. I appreciate the impact that it can have not just on the immediate level of waste disposal, but on the landscape's overall shape.
Where there are sites of special scientific interest or environmental destruction caused by noise pollution to communities and localities, the Secretary of State, as planning Minister, must consider the issues carefully. I know that the Secretary of State may tend to say, as his colleagues do on planning matters, that he does not want to talk about specific cases because he has to determine individual cases. However, surely he and his team are determining such individual cases in the context of environmental policy. Our frequent complaint is that we do not hear what that policy or strategy is. Where there is a conflict of interests or policy objectives between environmental conservation—whether in national parks or on the borders of urban areas—

Mr. Ron Davies: Or Cardiff bay.

Dr. Thomas: —or in Cardiff bay, as the hon. Gentleman says—wherever there are major individual projects and conflicts involving environmental policies, the Department's duty in that case is—if I may coin a phrase—to come clean and spell out clearly to the public its thinking in such matters. If there is a conflict of interest between the various duties of the Secretary of State and his Ministers according to which hats they are wearing, it is better that it should be known and debated in a public forum, rather than hidden behind closed doors in a castle at Cathays park.
We have to consider not only the global effect on our Welsh environment, the contributions that we can make and the sensitivity of the marine environment, but the way in which the Welsh countryside is affected by changes in planning policies. This is an important opportunity for the Secretary of State to show himself to be the greenest Secretary of State there has ever been. I mean Green with a big "G", not a small "g". We know that he is not green in other senses, because he has had a hard training in other Departments. We also know that he has lived for part of his career in a Welsh environment and enjoyed visiting it.
I know that he has a love of the Welsh landscape. But we want to see the practical consequences of that and hear him declare himself a green Minister in planning terms.
We need to protect the integrity of our national parks, environmentally sensitive areas, sites of scientific interest and designated areas and we need a coherent countryside planning policy. The areas represented by many of my hon. Friends present today include valley communities and the fringes of urban industrial south Wales, as it used to be called, and industrial north-east Wales. In those areas we can see the result of over-development, whether commercial or housing, that is out of character with the landscape and would not be permitted in a national park, where there are strict guidelines controlling the appearance of properties and estates.
We need to adopt the same kind of sensitive approach everywhere in the countryside. We might spend a lot of public money trying to re-create an attractive atmosphere in the inner cities, such as the marine districts of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, attempting to renovate districts with old industrial heritages and make them into conservation areas, conserving old buildings or landscaping away the effects of mining and quarrying, but it does not make much sense if we are destroying our landscape and heritage at the same time because of new development. We need consistency of approach by the Department.
We need to set Welsh environmental issues in the global context of the threat to the ecosphere, with all its moral, ethical and—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Swansea, East—theological implications. We need to adopt a global approach when scrutinising the micro-environment in Wales—and we need coherence in policy. We must assess the implications for our environment of all policy decisions, and we look to the Secretary of State for Wales, as the new green Minister, to respond to all our points.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the major programme of investment to be undertaken by the privatised water companies to improve the quality of water and the comprehensive measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern; and looks forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment later this year.'.
I certainly regard environmental policy as my responsibility as Secretary of State, assisted by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State. Environmental policy is vital. The environment is one of the most important policy areas, and my objective is and will remain to improve the quality of life in Wales, with particular reference to the environment.
We certainly inherit problems from the past, but, equally, we are trustees for the future. Although we may be able to point to actions in bygone years that have caused the situation today, that is no excuse and no alibi for not ensuring that we take the most urgent and positive action to overcome the problems of our inheritance—so that we can hand over a heritage of an improved quality of life.
I must also respond to what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) said about farming. Agriculture is vital to the future of Wales, and a strong and healthy agriculture is crucial to the quality of


life there. We must ensure an improvement in that quality of life so that we have an even better environment in which to work and live.
As we draw together the policies for the 1990s, towards the year 2000 and beyond, I should have thought that there would be almost unanimous agreement in the House that the environment is one of the key areas on which we must make our policies relevant to the needs of today and to those of future generations.
Today's debate could be seen as part of the long-running campaign designed to draw attention to the perceived problems of the Irish sea, but despite the wording of the motion the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy drew back from such a confined analysis, and I welcome the fact that he widened the debate; such was the purpose of our amendment. I readily accept that we have pushed him in the right direction, and I welcome the way in which he responded.
When dealing with the environment no single section of society and no single political party has a prerogative; we are dealing with a vital component in the thinking of us all. Environmental issues matter not only because they have an impact on us but because whatever we decide will have a major impact on future generations, too. In that sense we are the stewards of the future and must exercise our stewardship judiciously and with care and prudence. In every possible sense we must take account of the importance of environmental issues. We must be aware of what we are doing and the effects, and we must consider all the evidence before deciding how best to proceed. We must appreciate the damage that can flow from certain policies because such damage is often long-standing. Some problems can be corrected only at enormous cost and with great difficulty. The Government are conscious of the need to care for and protect the environment and of the need to devise policies to ensure that what we value today is available to future generations.

Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful for the way in which the motion is worded, which shows that this is a United Kingdom debate. What do the Government propose to do about new modern trawlers that hoover—there is no other word for it—the sea bed, and especially the beds of the Irish sea and the Minches? Those trawlers drag dumped material to where it should not be, as ICI found in a recent explosives case. The actions of such trawlers lead to the destruction of many breeding grounds of fish and creatures on the sea bed. Serious damage is being caused. The problem has grown in the past four or five years. I am not attacking any Department, because the problem is not of the Government's making, but what do they propose to do about it?

Mr. Hunt: The problem goes back much more than four or five years. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be aware of the positive approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the way in which he has raised such matters in the European Community. I do not want to go into great detail about those discussions, but if the hon. Gentleman has been present for debates and questions about fisheries, he will know that we are expressing serious concern about the need to ensure that not only are quotas strictly observed but that the breeding grounds are

protected for future generations. I am pleased at the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached his question and I reassure him about the Government's intentions as expressed in the robust language of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Many of the policies to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred are being implemented and will continue to be implemented to meet the concerns that have been expressed. Caring for the environment requires constant assessment of the relative costs of what is proposed and the benefits that will follow. The environmentally preferable solution is often the most costly. We must be sure that we are prepared to meet such costs, and we must be mindful of their extent in areas which I shall discuss later.
Judgments must be made between environmental costs and environmental benefits. For example, we hear much about the cost of dumping sewage at sea, but little about the disbenefits of alternative methods of disposal. We must look at the whole picture. We have already taken some steps, but economic growth is needed to meet the cost of improving the environment, and such growth often causes other environmental problems.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Secretary of State refers to the disbenefits of certain matters. If the long sea outfall is long enough for two tides, will not that sometimes be preferable to trying to absorb the chemical effluent from a sewage disposal plant?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. As I said earlier, experts believe that long sea outfalls can—if judiciously managed—be an effective means of disposal. A report by Consultants in Environmental Sciences has examined the assessment.
Often, we must examine the environmental consequences of the alternative means of disposal. I am not aware of an urgent wish on the part of people living in certain areas to have a sewage disposal improvement plant adjoining their houses, or of any who are urging that we should allow effluent from sewage disposal plants to be injected into the sea near where they live. We must always ensure that we examine the total picture before reaching decisions about part of it, especially when that part has given rise to a pressure point from a section of public opinion.

Mr. Anderson: Is not that debate already closed as the result of pressure from the European Community? Did not the Government announce on 27 June that any long sea outfalls yet to be put into operation must include a treatment plant? As I understand it, no timetable has yet been announced in respect of Welsh areas such as Swansea bay. When will the Minister be able to announce that timetable, which is the subject of considerable concern in a number of Welsh coastal areas?

Mr. Hunt: I shall respond in more detail to the hon. Member's point in a moment.
In working out any timetable, we must be aware of the costs, and also the relevance of the alternative means of dealing with the sewage. The sewage will not go away; we must find a better method of dealing with it. We must bear it in mind that alternative means of disposal can carry with them equally problematic difficulties for the environment. We must think through the consequences before embarking on the tight timetable that certain sections of public opinion are urging us to adopt.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept—given where his constituency lies—that the fact that a quarter of all the sewage sludge that is dispersed into the waters around these islands is dispersed by the North West water authority into Liverpool bay can cause an enormous localised problem. Given that the Irish sea turns over its water only about twice a year—a very low turnover—that may not be the most appropriate way of disposing of sewage in that location.

Mr. Hunt: I am well aware of the consequences of over-disposals into an area that does not have the necessary turnover of fresh water, although I do not accept the double mechanism to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have not seen that statistic verified, but if it is correct it is equally relevant to the problem that we are discussing.
We must be aware of the environmental impact of alternative methods of disposal when we embark on assessing the costs and benefits. As I said, the problem is that we need the economic growth to pay for improvements in the environment. The Government must provide the means for securing economic growth, while developing environmental policies to ensure that what we have and value remains for succeeding generations. Equally—as our environment is affected not only by what we do but by what other countries do—we must do our best to promote sensible environmental policies, not just in this country but in the wider world.
I hope that it is accepted in the House, because I believe that it is widely accepted outside, that the Government have done a tremendous amount to promote and develop environmental policies. Let us take one or two examples. In 1974, a Conservative Government introduced the Control of Pollution Act, but there was a long wait until, under another Conservative Government in 1983, the benefits of that Act were put into operation. Last year, the Government established the National Rivers Authority, which was generally acclaimed as an effective way to improve the water environment. This year, we have in the throes of the parliamentary process the Environmental Protection Bill, which will provide us with the basic framework for our pollution control well into the next century.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not hesitate to ask this question as the university of Cardiff, with Professor Michael Claridge, who is president of the Linnean Society, and Professor Pritchard, has one of the most distinguished schools in this subject in Europe. The professors made the strongest representations about the natural history museum and the consequences of the changes there for research into all these matters. Will the Welsh Office use its influence to help those who are trying to help the museum to get proper funding for its worldwide responsibilities?

Mr. Hunt: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed answer to that point, but the policy is that the Welsh Office does not fund museums and galleries, with the one specific exception of the national museum. We shall certainly do our best to help and encourage funding for the museums and galleries in Wales.
Not only has this Conservative Government introduced these Bills and developed major environmental policies,

but we have produced the economic climate that allows us to make the investment necessary to implement the Bills when enacted.
Water pollution problems are not new. They are not the result of the policies of, or of any recent activity or inactivity by, the Government. Nor did they suddenly appear when water plcs were created. Water quality problems result, in some cases, from industrial and agricultural policies that go back for decades and from a lack of investment by water authorities in relatively unglamorous sectors such as sewage treatment.

Mr. Richard Holt: As a former member of a water authority, I do not feel that we should take all the blame for that, because the previous Labour Government slashed half the investment programme of water authorities. We should have happily spent the money if the Labour Government had given it to us.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that intervention. If the last Labour Government had a record, it was in the size of the cuts imposed on water authorities. I agree that there were serious economic problems, and the IMF had been asked to come in and bale out the Labour Government, so there are understandable reasons why the investment programme was cut. However, it produced the serious problems with which we are now dealing.
It has been common practice in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world to discharge sewage effluent into the sea with only the most preliminary treatment to remove litter, rags and large solid particles, because it had been taken for granted that the size of the sea and the dilution that it provides, and the effect of the sun and the waves, would be sufficient to allow it to continue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, in many cases, it is.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is not one of the fundamental difficulties the fact that, when the European Community introduced the bathing waters directive in 1976, the Department of the Environment deliberately chose to interpret "bathing beach" in such a way that not a single bathing beach in Wales fell under the definition? As a consequence, the Government were able considerably to delay the implementation of the directive.

Mr. Hunt: I did not wish to be drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) into criticism of the last Labour Government, and equally I should not be drawn into criticism of them by the hon. Member, although it may be attractive to do so to prove my point. The 1976 bathing waters directive was not observed by the previous Labour Government. I do not want to get drawn into the past, because I have a lot to say about what we are doing now, and what we propose to do in the future. I am responding to an intervention. I did not introduce this lengthy look into the past.
Water pollution problems result from practices that have been going on for a considerable time. I remember reading the report, published by the Consultants in Environmental Sciences, of a study for the Department of the Environment of large domestic sewage discharging into coastal waters via a properly designed long sea outfall. It observed little environmental impact. Beyond 50 to 100 m from the point of discharge, the survey failed to detect measurable impacts. Outside the immediate mixing


zone, the study said that it would be difficult to detect differences in sea water quality resulting from discharges of treated effluent, or screened raw sewage.
The point is that this Government have tackled the problems of water pollution. The Water Act 1989, with the consequential establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and our recent policy announcements are the pivots of our policies on water pollution and show clearly our commitment to resolving the problems. We are determined that the water environment should be improved by all practical steps and in the shortest time scale commensurate with the available technology and resources.

Mr. Holt: As my hon. Friend will know, the Select Committee on the Environment recently carried out a detailed examination of long sea outfall, and its report will be published next week. I cannot say what is in the report, but I can hint that the long sea outfall will be given a fairly clean bill of health.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful, and I look forward to reading the report.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoke about quality. The last national survey took place in 1985 and these are the latest figures that I have been able to find. They show that river quality in England and Wales is such that 94 per cent. of Welsh rivers were in classes 1 or 2, and 83 per cent. were in class 1. Some 98 per cent. of estuarial waters in Wales were in those categories. A report published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea said that, apart from Liverpool bay, where the mercury levels were close to the European Commission limit, although they are now declining, the problems of the Irish sea are essentially minor and short-lived.
The Government are also doing more about river quality. One aim of the National Rivers Authority is to achieve a continuing improvement in the quality of rivers. Good quality river water is essential for environmental improvement, and polluted rivers are one of the main sources of sea pollution. This year, the authority is conducting a survey of river quality in England and Wales. When it is published, it will form the basis on which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will set river quality objectives. Those objectives will be the parameters within which NRA policies and decisions on matters such as discharge consents and abstraction licences will be founded.
With regard to Wales, the advisory committee that I established under section 3 of the Water Act 1989—and which will advise me on NRA matters—will be meeting shortly. It will closely study NRA policies and will give me the benefit of its advice on how best I can ensure that the NRA implements its policies in Wales. I shall certainly give the NRA every possible encouragement to take positive action to secure improvements in water quality in the Principality.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am glad that the Secretary of State is setting improved standards. Will he ensure that the NRA has a better record for prosecutions, especially for industrial pollution, than did the former water authorities, as shown in the statistics recently produced by the

Department of the Environment? Some water authorities did not initiate a single prosecution when rivers were polluted in 1988.

Mr. Hunt: Although I did not attend all the debates, I should have thought that it would have been made clear that one of the main reasons why it was thought right to introduce changes was the lack of positive prosecution. We separated the different responsibilities so that there could be an effective prosecution service. One of the first prosecutions by the NRA was for the Shell spillage last year into the River Mersey. The NRA acted with commendable speed and considerable effect in that case. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted one of the main reasons why the Government thought it right to introduce that legislation.
The 1985 survey gave a number of reasons why river quality was not as good as it should be. The primary reasons were sewage effluent and agricultural pollution. That is why, in the next 10 years, sewerage undertakers in England and Wales will be spending £12 billion on sewerage services, including sewage treatment works and sea outfalls. Dwr Cymru will be investing £400 million during the next five years, including £140 million on sewage treatment works, and a further £300 million in the following five years. Work on some of the worst plants will be completed by March 1992 and will have an immediate impact on the rivers into which the works discharge.
I have been concerned about the overall increase during recent years in the number of agricultural pollution incidents. In 1988 there were more than 4,000 reported incidents of pollution by agriculturalists, almost all from silage or slurry liquor. Both are far more effective than raw sewage in damaging the aquatic environment. Last year, the number of incidents fell by 30 per cent., which appears to be a good record, but which I regret was more likely to be caused by the exceptional summer than by good housekeeping. Later this year we shall introduce regulations setting minimum standards for the construction of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil stores and given the NRA the power to require improvements to existing structures. That will go a long way towards reducing the devastating effect of such pollution.
The Government have also taken a number of policy initiatives that will have a direct impact on the sea. The North sea conference agreements, in which we played a leading role, are generally welcome and the Government have scrupulously abided by them. Not only that, but we took the decision to extend the agreement for the North sea to all other seas round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. All the agreements reached in the North sea conference have been applied to the Irish sea. That was clearly set out in the guidance note on the second North sea conference in 1988, which said:
In the Government's view … other seas around the kingdom require an equal degree of environmental safeguarding and the changes of policy implied by the declaration will in general be applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom.
That we have now done.
Particular policy agreements reached in the second North sea conference include, first, that the dumping of polluting material should be ended at the earliest practical date; secondly, that as from 1 January 1989 no materials should be dumped unless there are no practical alternatives on land and it can be shown that the materials pose no risk to the marine environment; thirdly, that sea


disposal for sewage sludge be retained as an option, but that urgent action be taken to reduce the concentrations of certain dangerous contaminants and to ensure that the quality of such contaminants disposed of should not increase above 1987 levels; fourthly, that marine incineration be substantially reduced by not less than 65 per cent. by 1 January 1991; and, fifthly, that the practice be phased out by 31 December 1994. We have abided by the North sea agreement.
On 22 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that industrial wastes were not to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992. The 1987 agreement accepted that wastes such as those licensed by the United Kingdom could continue to be dumped at sea, provided that they did not harm the sea and that there was no practical means of land-based disposal. Nevertheless, we have gone further and, with the co-operation of the companies concerned, we will end dumping of all such industrial waste.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial waste being dumped at sea. Does that include waste from Sellafield?

Mr. Hunt: It does not. Industrial waste is carefully defined. I used that definition, and it was accepted, in the conference at which that was decided.
On 5 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that by the end of 1988 the United Kingdom would end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. At present, some 70 per cent. of sewage sludge is disposed of on land. We have continued to encourage sewerage undertakers to develop land-based disposal methods for the remainder of the sludge. As a result of significant advances in incineration techniques, we decided that the disposal of sewage sludge to sea should end. The time lag is required because of the substantial programme of work and capital investment required to implement alternative disposal methods, including obtaining planning permission.
On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that we had concluded that a case could be made for treating all substantial discharges of sewage. We have decided that, in general, municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to coastal waters where it can be shown that that would not adversely affect the environment. It is estimated that introducing that level of treatment will cost about £1.5 billion, which is additional to the investment currently programmed to improve the quality of our bathing waters. That in itself will cost £1.4 billion, of which £100 million is to improve bathing water quality in Wales.
In the third North sea conference in March, further agreements were reached that will again be applied to all waters round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. It was agreed to end sewage sludge dumping by 1998; to cease dumping industrial waste by 1992; to destroy PCBs by 1995 if possible, and by 1999 at the latest; to reduce by 50 per cent. or more by 1995 some 37 key hazardous substances coming from rivers; to reduce from 1995 by 70 per cent. or more emissions to rivers or to the atmosphere of cadmium, lead mercury and dioxines; to reduce by 50 per cent. atmospheric emissions of 17 dangerous substances by 1995, or at the latest by 1999; to halve from

1985 levels the input of nutrients in sensitive areas by 1995; and to strive for a substantial reduction in pesticides, with control of their use and application by 1992. Those are important agreements, and as those policies come into effect, they will make a considerable impact on the seas round our coast.
We have not finished there. The Environmental Protection Bill, now passing through another place, will provide further assurances of a cleaner, safer environment. We shall introduce the concept of integrated pollution control with, for the first time, a single regulatory body controlling emissions to land, water and air. In that respect, as in others, we are ahead.
Our initiatives in recent years, and our continuing efforts in pollution control and environmental improvement are, by any standards, a considerable achievement. They demonstrate our total commitment to the improvement and protection of our environment and give impetus to other countries to follow suit. But we have not finished there. In the autumn, we will publish an environmental White Paper that will bring together in one document our achievements and will also set out how we intend to move forward with setting an environmental agenda for the rest of the century and beyond.
The Environmental Protection Bill's 147 clauses cover much territory, but they are united by one goal—a cleaner and safer environment. Far too often these days, people come near to discrediting what is fundamentally a good cause. The best way of avoiding that is to provide more information, not less. The Bill will give the public more access than ever before to information on industrial pollution and on how individual firms will be obliged to clean up their operations. The Government have pressed for a Europewide agency to monitor environmental quality in every member state.
The view is commonly held that environmental issues will play a prominent part in national and international political debate in the last decade of this century. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin with a Bill which will, whatever arguments may be made about it, provide a secure framework for much of our pollution control well into the next century.
Control and regulations are vital for improved environmental quality, just as they they are important to the raising of health standards and securing safety at work. However, they provide only part of the means of enhancing environmental quality. Our unequivocal view is that the best way of achieving that objective is a judicial mix of government regulation and market economics. The market and private enterprise are often challenged by regulation to achieve higher technological standards and better performance, and that is right. The environmental history of eastern Europe in particular demonstrates that state control does not go hand in hand with better environmental standards and regulation.
I do not know where the Opposition would strike the balance, but I trust that they accept that such controls are not without cost, and that incentives other than controls are often the best means of achieving environmental goals cost effectively. Whatever may be the Opposition's views on that point, they must share our belief that sensible and sustainable growth is the friend, not the enemy, of a cleaner and greener environment. It is vital that the coherent and sophisticated system of pollution control that we are introducing in the Bill is credible. Credibility


requires that such a system is operated by strong and effective institutions, and that it should be open to public scrutiny.
We are to some extent still in the early stages of establishing some of the institutions that will monitor and control pollution. For example, the National Rivers Authority has only recently started operating, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution did not come into being until 1987. Institutional questions will inevitably take some time to get right, and we shall consider them in the context of our work on the White Paper to be published later this year. There would be little point in establishing an excellent system of pollution control without a means of implementing it.
I referred to the history of pollution, and we are dealing with problems that have their origins a long way back. Others were created in the 1960s and 1970s. We have reduced the discharge from Sellafield to 3 per cent. of what it was in 1979, for example, so there have been major advances.
The Environmental Protection Bill is far from being our last word on our environmental policies. It would be ludicrous to try to solve all the problems in one Bill—doubly so in respect of environmental issues, which require the most up-to-date scientific information and unparalleled international co-operation to resolve. We will set out in the White Paper our environmental policy for the United Kingdom for the rest of the decade and into the next century. It will bring together a strategy for the environment in a single, comprehensive document dealing with all aspects of environmental work. It will confirm that we as a nation are prepared to play our part in creating a preferred environment, and that we shall fully discharge our obligations as trustees for future generations.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Before I comment on the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome back to the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with my best wishes for his full recovery. I cannot give the same welcome to the hon. Gentleman's beard, but that is a matter of taste.
We welcome this opportunity to debate environmental problems, particularly in respect of the Principality. The Government amendment allows more scope for debate than does the Plaid Cymru motion. The Secretary of State made several references to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government were so concerned about that legislation and its impact on Wales that not one Minister from the Welsh Office or even one Conservative Member from Wales served on the Bill's Standing Committee—despite the fact that the Bill contains matters of considerable importance to Wales. The Minister from the Scottish Office did his best, but they were really matters for the Welsh Office. Doubtless that issue will be raised again.
Although the motion concerns pollution levels in the Irish sea, it touches on an issue of significance for the Principality. The Secretary of State referred to the benefits of water privatisation, but were he to undertake a survey in north, mid or south Wales, he would find almost universal condemnation of it. That is not simply because

the people of Wales will have to pay a horrendous water poll tax in the next few months. They have other bills to pay, too, because they have, rightly, concentrated on improving the quality of the water in their rivers and reservoirs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked in a recent parliamentary question about the quality of drinking water in Wales. The answer that he received was that 21 of the 34 water works in Wales have failed the Government's tests for aluminium in water. Our beaches, which are so vital to the tourist industry, especially in the north and west of Wales, stand condemned in the eyes of the world because of the dirt and filth that pollute them.
Our marine environment is precious to us all. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for having referred to the cuts in the natural history museum's budget. In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State said that the Welsh Office does not deal with the funding of museums outside Wales. However, the Welsh Office funds research. Research at the natural history museum in London could play a large part in helping to solve the pollution problems in the Principality. I hope that when the Secretary of State returns to Wales he will arrange a meeting with Professor Claridge and discuss these important issues with him.
The drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority will become part of a new environmental protection agency when there is a Labour Government. The agency would be mirrored at both regional and local government level. It would have an important role to play in determining and monitoring pollution in the Principality.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for having pressed the Welsh Office—it has been hard to do so in recent months—about the sewage outfall at Lavernock in south Wales. Only reluctantly did they receive the answer that it would be fully treated before it entered the Bristol channel.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman puts faith in the ability of local authorities to deal with waste. I remind him that local authorities in this country as a whole were given 10 years in which to submit their plans for waste disposal to the Department of the Environment. During that 10-year period, fewer than 50 per cent. of them bothered to do so.

Mr. Murphy: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Were he to read the response given by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), to the Association of District Councils, he would find that the Secretary of State said that, in exercising their functions as waste disposal and collection authorities, Welsh district councils were doing an extremely good job. The main problem, however, is lack of resources. It is ironic that after more than 10 years of Conservative Government hardly any of the money that has come into our coffers from North sea oil has been used by the Government to deal with pollution, or with waste collection and disposal.
The debate highlights the problems connected with waste collection and disposal in Wales. The problems are different in Wales. The district councils are both collection and disposal authorities. They face new problems over recycling industrial hazardous waste coming to Wales


from eastern Europe via West Germany and other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will, I am sure, refer later to the landfill tip in Swansea which deals with waste from eastern Europe.
The Government have agreed to retain the existing structure in Wales. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill the Government assured us that Welsh district councils will still be the collection and disposal authorities. The same will apply to Scotland. Scottish district councils will also be exempt from the private competition regulations that are to apply to England, but the Government are unwilling to exempt Wales, even though the position in Wales and Scotland is exactly the same. The last thing that Welsh district councils want when they are burdened with the collection and disposal of waste is to be still further burdened by having to compete with private industry.
Waste disposal by private industry is exemplified by one firm in my constituency, ReChem International, which is a blight on Wales because of the pollution it causes. Last week the financial press referred to ReChem as a good investment; its profits were soaring, despite a slump during the past 12 months on account of bad publicity. Most of the company's profits are made from imports, most of which are polychlorinated biphenyls. The toxic waste trade is suspect and bitterly disliked. My constituency is the centre for the disposal of much of the world's most deadly poisons. That is wrong. Labour will end the commercial trade in toxic waste.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: This is an important matter. All of us are guardians of the world environment. What does the hon. Gentleman think that third-world countries should do with their PCBs if they are not allowed to export them to be destroyed by the countries which often provided them with the PCBs in the first place?

Mr. Murphy: That is an important point, but ReChem International does not import toxic waste from many third-world countries. I am glad that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened, because it allows me to tell him that the industrial waste comes from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. None of those is a third-world country. The figures provided to us by the Welsh Office suggest that the vast bulk of the trade in toxic waste coming to the ReChem incinerator in Pontypool is from developed countries. Our view, which I am sure is held by many parties, is that each developed country should look after its own toxic waste.
It will be of interest to those hon. Members with port constituencies that the following ports have been used to import toxic waste: Chatham, Dartford, Dover, Felixstowe, Gravesend, Harwich, Immingham, Ipswich, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Seaforth and Tilbury. Toxic waste comes to Wales for disposal from each of those ports.
We all welcome the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Recently it recognised for the first time that people in south Wales are genuinely concerned about having the ReChem incinerator in their midst. The Select Committee's recommendations amount to a first step towards a major public inquiry into what should happen to that plant.
The Secretary of State has made much of the provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill and of what the White Paper will contain. However, that will have no

significance unless appropriate resources are provided to deal with the problem. During the past few years, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been seriously under-resourced throughout Britain, but particularly in Wales. There are not enough inspectors. The Government must give a full commitment to increase substantially HMIP's resources, to ensure that there is proper monitoring of pollution in both Wales and the country as a whole.
The most significant underfunding has been the underfunding of local authorities. We look to them not just to dispose of waste but to keep our streets clean and to ensure that litter is cleared away from our town centres. Throughout the past 10 or 11 years the Government have systematically robbed councils of rate support grant, which has made it increasingly difficult for Welsh councils to deal with litter. Although the Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to collect litter, it does not provide them with a single extra penny with which to carry out that duty. Therefore, that duty is bound to be empty and meaningless.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will battle with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Welsh local authorities—which have a good record in local government—have more resources put at their disposal. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time exercising his mind about putting resources into the local authorities instead of wasting millions of pounds on administering the poll tax, he would be thanked by the vast majority of people in Wales.
The fundamental problem lies with the Government. They dislike local government, and that has been evident from the number of Acts of Parliament affecting local government—more than 50 in the past 10 years. The Government are obsessed with privatisation and ideology. I suspect that that is why they have abandoned the pledge on the privatisation of electricity—that they would ensure that there are flue gas scrubbers in our coal-fired power stations. That is a major problem. The Government do not realise that there should be a proper mix of public intervention, regulation and bans and private sector intervention, in the form of the market, the price mechanism and green taxes. Opposition Members are at one in believing that, until Wales is rid of the Conservative Government, our environment will not get much better.

Mr. Michael Lord: I welcome the debate, even though it is inspired by the Opposition, because I welcome any debate on the environment. This is an issue that is so important that it needs to be kept at the top of our agenda but unfortunately, all too often, we naturally become obsessed with inflation, interest rates, mortgage rates, the community charge, defence and so on. The environment tends to be lost from our sight.
It is important to give credit to the Government for what they have done well, as well as to demand action from them. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment are to be congratulated on the immense strides that they have made recently on the environment. I am delighted about that.
Suffolk, Central is landlocked and therefore has no coastal problems. My excuses for intervening in the debate are that I am especially fond of the sea, one of a declining breed of sea bathers, and an extremely keen sailor, and,


perhaps more important—I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) will forgive me—I have been visiting the island of Anglesey for my holidays almost every year for more than 50 years. I am very fond of it and extremely anxious about what happens to it. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter in the past.
I was in Anglesey at Whitsun, as were many other folk. The weather was quite good. I went, as I always do, to my favourite beach, Traeth Bychan. When I drew my curtains on the first morning, I was horrified to see my favourite bay looking as though it was full of brown Windsor soup. That is the only way that I can describe it. It remained like that for several days, during which families and young children wanted to go for a paddle or a swim and to enjoy the sea. The shallow water where children would paddle was even worse. To continue my culinary comparison, the shallow waters were more like chocolate mousse.
I took my own samples and sent them off. I do not yet have the results. I do not know the reasons for the appearance of the sea. I have made inquiries at the university at Bangor—to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred—and elsewhere. I hope that I will receive some satisfaction and help from the university. From what I have been able to discover, it is almost certain that sewage will be implicated one way or the other.

Mr. Anderson: I warn the hon. Gentleman to be aware that the scientists may claim that it is only algae that is at fault. We had a similar problem with the sea in south Wales which, with the sun, went brown. We thought that the problem was caused by "Douglas Hurds", but it was not. Whatever they were, they had the same effect. There was a direct correlation with pollution, although a form of algae was responsible.

Mr. Lord: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Algae has been talked of as a possible culprit in the case to which I referred. Certainly, much of what I saw and waded into briefly did not smell like algae.
I have quite an intimate knowledge of the local sewerage system in that part of the world. When, as an undergraduate, I had to earn some money to keep myself alive during the long summer vacations—like many other people—I worked for the contractor who installed the two outfalls in nearby villages—Benllech and Moelfre. I was involved there, albeit only as a labourer or a hod-carrier. There was a huge debate at the time about whether the outfalls would do the job, how long they should be and whether land-based treatment would be more satisfactory. Everybody who was concerned about the standard of water at that time was assured that all would be well.
I cannot tell hon. Members precisely how far beyond low water mark the outfalls go, but my guess is that it is no more than 100 m. That means that their effectiveness depends on the correct use of tide flows, wind direction and so on. Bearing in mind those factors, it is not unlikely that whatever is realised from the outfalls may find its way back to our beaches—possibly just at the wrong time of year when people wish to enjoy the beaches. It has been suggested that Liverpool bay is implicated, and that may be so. One cause of the pollution could be discharges further up the coast in Wales and up the Lancashire coast, which may come back down to cause the damage.
No one can be really sure of either the cause or the long-term effect. But when our oceans are so precious, why take the risk? The only way to eliminate the problems in the long term is to deal with all our sewage on land. That is perhaps a radical solution, but I believe that we shall come to it eventually. I am concerned that, in all the huge projects that we are now discussing, the immense amounts of money involved—if not misspent—could perhaps be better spent. With hindsight we will wish that we had thought the matter through more carefully and seriously considered the possibility of treating sewage on land.
I know that there are difficulties. Every day, 300 million gallons of sewage are discharged to our rivers and seas. I know what an enormous task and challenge it would be to deal with that sewage on land. The Secretary of State has pointed out all the difficulties—the costs, the burden on industry and the possible environmental effects on the land as well as on the sea. I believe that the challenge is worth taking up.
For industry, necessity is the mother of invention, and I believe that industry would respond. When faced with the threat to the ozone layer in recent times, industry has responded rapidly to the problem of chlorofluorocarbons. In a more minor way, industry has solved the problem of the rings on Coca Cola cans which used to cause so many problems when they were thrown away or used to fiddle parking meters. The cans are now made so that the rings cannot be detached from them. Those are two examples—one major and one minor—of the way in which industry will respond to problems when forced to do so.

Mr. Holt: Has my hon. Friend read the report by the Select Committee on the Environment on land pollution, especially the part of it dealing with the problem that the Dutch have experienced because they simply do not have enough land to dispose of all the slurry? Their solution has been to cull some of their cows. Does my hon. Friend suggest that we start culling some of his farmers' cows in Suffolk so that we do not overdo the pollution that could be caused on the land? Perhaps my hon. Friend is not taking into account the fact that we should be incinerating a great deal of waste.

Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am not suggesting that I have all the solutions to those problems. However, industry is working on them at the moment. For example, ICI is developing new plants to try to accelerate the process of treating sewage. It has also developed a product for treating the water that is released into our rivers after sewage has been treated. Although we can remove 90 per cent. of the bacteria that cause problems later, when the water is discharged to our rivers and seas, 10 per cent. of the bacteria remains. That is a major problem, although I understand that ICI has developed a system which eliminates that difficulty. It is an enormously beneficial move.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lord: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that I should make progress. I am conscious that I do not represent a Welsh constituency, so I am imposing on the House tonight.
I appreciate that my remarks may be rather more emotional than scientific. In an age in which we can put a man on the moon, when it takes four hours to get from London to New York by aeroplane and when satellites


allow us to sit in our homes and watch what is happening on the other side of the world, I cannot believe that it is right to simply discharge our waste products into the ocean. Time does not allow this evening for detailed technical arguments like those which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is encouraging me to enter into.
Anyone who has paddled or swum in the sea, sailed on it or fished it, thrown a pebble into it or simply sat and looked at it—that is, every one of us—must be aware of the physical and emotional importance of that hugely important asset and must accept that it should not be damaged or risks taken with it. I am aware of the difficulties, but as there is a White Paper in the offing I urge my colleagues on the Government Front Bench to consider the possibility of a commitment at some point to treat all our sewage on land.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Many of my parliamentary colleagues from Wales travel weekly to London. When I left Cardiganshire today to motor over the Plynlimon mountains to join the InterCity train at Caersws to take me across the border, I took a look at the environment. The countryside from Cardiganshire to the border is worth looking at at this time of year.

Dr. Thomas: And then?

Mr. Howells: I will come to that later.
That environment was so beautiful, green and healthy-looking. Trees have been planted everywhere, perhaps with the help of the Forestry Commission, which planted many trees on the Plynlimon mountains 30 years ago.
I then asked myself, "Who has been responsible for our wonderful environment in mid-Wales?" I suppose the answer is the farming fraternity, the agriculturists and our fathers and forefathers who, over many generations, tilled the land and planted the trees. I also asked myself whether I could find any fault with the environment as I see it today. I could not find any faults. It all looked so beautiful.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) and by the Secretary of State that agriculture plays a major role in our environment. However, we must remember that agriculture is in dire financial straits at the moment. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that our industry does not have the opportunity to compete on equal terms with its counterparts in Europe. It should be the Secretary of State's top priority over the next 12 months to try to ensure that our farmers compete on equal terms. For example, with regard to the ewe premium, there is a variation between Ireland and Wales. In Wales, the premium is £7 per head, while I am told that in Ireland it is £18 per head.
Confidence in our industry is at its lowest ebb. When I was a little child, there were about 30 full-time farmers in my village. They were all viable. They were all self-contained, and farmers' sons stayed at home. However, there are only three full-time farms in my village today and the rest are all part-time farmers like me. The others work in Aberystwyth and other areas. I am not

against part-time farming. It is a wonderful achievement to farm 20 or 30 acres and also be employed in industry or in a profession of one's own choice. That is a wonderful life.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Meironnydd Nant Conwy on introducing this debate on the environment. I will not disagree with him, but I hope that, when we next have tea together, he will define what he means by an organic Welsh lamb. I am sure that there are quite a few of them in Meironnydd and Cardiganshire, but unfortunately for his constituents and for mine, the majority of all those small lambs that are born on the hills are being exported to Italy. I am afraid that he has not eaten an organic lamb yet, but time will tell.
What advice can the Secretary of State offer to the silage farmers, the majority of which are dairy farmers, some of whom unfortunately are breaking the law? That is a major problem in many parts of Wales, especially in Anglesey, the vale of Clwyd, Carmarthen, Pembrokeshire and my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer advice to some farmers who may be flouting the law unintentionally.
This motion is welcome. It focuses on an important problem. With concentration on the North sea, it is some times forgotten that similar, or in some cases greater, problems exist in the Irish sea. The condemnation in the motion is, if anything, too mild. The Government have no answer to the charges, as can be seen from the fact that their amendment does not mention the Irish sea, but provides the usual self-congratulatory, wishy-washy generalisations which are the hallmark of the Government's approach to the environment.
The Irish sea is gigantic proof, if any of us needed it, of the cavalier and irresponsible approach adopted by this Government and the previous Labour Government towards the environment. The Irish sea is shallow and slow to drain, and it will harbour some of its poisons for thousands of years.
I want to consider now some of the specific problems. Since Sellafield opened, half a tonne of plutonium has been discharged into the Irish sea, making it the most radioactively contaminated—not radioactive—sea in the world. There are more nuclear installations bordering the Irish sea than any other sea.
Britain's dirtiest estuary, the Mersey, drains into the Irish sea. In the recent Mersey clean-up campaign, the Government took steps to limit sewage discharges into the river. They shipped it all out to sea and dumped it. In other words, they made themselves reliant on sewage sludge dumping, which every other country has phased out. However, the Government intend to continue with such dumping until 1998. The Irish sea contains the second biggest sewage sludge dumping ground for the United Kingdom.
The biggest industrial dump site in the north Atlantic is in the Irish sea, just off Cork. Each year, millions of tonnes of untreated sewage and industrial wastes are dumped in the Irish sea. The Irish sea is heavily contaminated in certain coastal areas with synthetic materials and heavy metals, especially mercury from the ICI works at Runcorn, although, thankfully, that company has at last stopped that practice.
I now give some of the alarming facts. The Irish sea contains more man-made radioactivity than any other sea. It is bordered by more nuclear installations than any other sea. I have just mentioned Cork. Also, 250 chemicals were found in a single sample taken from a discharge into the


River Mersey. Three hundred million gallons of sewage go into the Irish sea every day, and 80 per cent. of it receives no treatment or is only screened.
Whales and dolphins are now rare, but I have a dolphin family in my constituency. The other dolphin family lives on the north-east coast of Scotland. We are proud of our dolphins, as they have been with us for a long time. Let us hope that, in their wisdom, the Government will safeguard their interests as well as those of our constituents.
After 1990, only two nations in the EC will be committed to dumping industrial waste into the sea. Those two nations are Britain and Ireland.
On swimming, there is a message about the North sea—swim at your own risk. Nine million holidaymakers visit the coast of the Irish sea, yet not one beach has a "blue flag" to show that it is clean. Eighty per cent. of sewage outfalls into the Irish sea receive no treatment, or only a simple screening. Seventy per cent. of the pipes discharge at or above the low water mark. Untreated sewage discharged into bathing water brings the risk of illness, ranging from salmonella poisoning to hepatitis. Full sewage treatment would virtually eliminate those risks.
I could go on for a long time, but the message is clear. I urge the Government to give extra financial aid and resources to research and development. It is a great pity that the Countryside Council for Wales is going to Bangor. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and I agree on nearly every issue, but the council should have been in Aberystwyth, the agricultural capital of Wales. I ask the Minister and the Government to do what they can to safeguard the coastal belt. The National Rivers Authority will need more financial help in the years to come. Our rivers, whether they start in Plynlimon, Snowdonia or Cader Idris, all flow gently and take everything with them to the sea. We must do all that we can to ensure that our rivers are made clean for the next generation.
As I said, mid-Wales is a beautiful area. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who, as Secretary of State, established the Mid Wales development board. It is now 14 years later. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman because that board has done excellent work in mid-Wales. It is a great pity that the present Secretary of State cannot extend the boundaries of that rural board for mid-Wales to include areas in my constituency in north Pembroke, because we have an important link with Ireland at Fishguard and Goodwick. It would be a wonderful achievement if we could give the same facilities within the board area to that part of the country, which is in dire need of financial help.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) for giving hon. Members this opportunity to talk about the environment. This is not my first chance to discuss Welsh matters with him. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his sensible remarks. When we consider the environment and pollution, we must remember that man-made problems are subject to

man-made solutions. We should remember that substantial costs are involved in dealing with alleged forms of pollution. Therefore, we must be sure that the pollution that we identify is real and is as important as we see it.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members talked about pollution of the seas and of the land because of mineral extraction and, in particular, the application of fertilisers. He did not talk a great deal about pollution of the air, which is of great significance to people in Wales, especially because of the alleged global warming and greenhouse gases. Dealing with that problem could have a profound effect not just on the environment but on jobs and industries in the Principality. We should deal with that issue at a little more length.
If we had been debating this matter in the 1970s, we would probably have been talking about acid rain. Our concerns for the environment tend to go in cycles. There are fashions—issues come and go. We are very concerned about them at the time, but they pass as scientists bring a new issue to our attention. In this case, we are discussing issues that affect Wales in particular. We should talk about the effect of the carbon dioxide scare and its relationship to industry and life in that part of the world.

Mr. Wigley: Although those matters certainly got more attention a few years ago, regrettably in Wales the problem has not gone away. In western Wales, there are 200 lakes in which fish life has died because of the acidity of the water. We are still struggling with that problem.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I commend to him a paper written by Professor Sir James Beament of Queen's college, Cambridge, in which he analyses the acid rain problem and casts grave doubts on the suggestion that sulphur dioxide is the cause of it. He identified leaching of the soil, magnesium and so on. I shall not go into the scientific details now, because of the time available, but there are other causes. We often identify the wrong cause and then set about dealing with it. In fact, we offer wrong solutions, and, in doing so, we can cause grave damage to industries and jobs and spend a great deal of taxpayers' money.
One of the important points that have been raised so far is the need to make sure that the scientific evidence on which we base some of our policies is accurate and valid. Many of our concerns in the recent past arose as a result of a conference called Global 2000, which was staged by the American Government in the 1980s. Many scientists got together to survey the future, and they came up with many apocalyptic scenarios, one of which included global warming and greenhouse gases. It was suggested that that problem was largely caused by carbon dioxide and other carbon gases being released into the atmosphere.
The conference neglected to consider other atmospheric gases, such as water vapour, which has important heat and radiation effects in the atmosphere, and oxygen. We all know that oxygen is never talked about in terms of radiation and global warming, but it is of great significance. Furthermore, the effect of the sun and our proximity to it was hardly mentioned. The sun is the great engine of our climate, as are sun spots, and both affect global temperature.
Such things tend not to be covered in scientific papers, because we cannot legislate to do anything about our position in relation to the sun or the occurrence of sun spots. We can, however, legislate to cut our use of carbon


dioxide. That means that we place increased restrictions on the coal industry and on the manufacture of motor vehicles. In so doing, we may be over-reacting to the effect of carbon dioxide on what is only a small part of global warming.
Hon. Members who represent the Principality know of coal's importance as a mineral. It is one of the most important minerals in all economies, and generates 40 per cent. of the world's electricity. We are all concerned about wasting energy and talk about putting tea cosies on our houses to keep them warm. However, we do not necessarily pay enough attention to making energy production more efficient.
That brings me to the role that Governments can play in reducing alleged pollution. That could sometimes take the form of backing research and development into making energy production more efficient, instead of concentrating on saving energy at the level of using insulating devices in our houses, which results in only a small saving when compared with what we could do in terms of improving energy production.
We must keep an eye on scientists. There have been scares throughout history. At the time of the millenium of the 10th century, people castigated themselves and their leaders because, according to the Book of Revelations, the earth was about to warm up and we would all frizzle and die. That apocalypse came and went, and nothing very much happened.
The earth is the most amazing self-correcting organism. When there are changes in the balance of minerals, atmosphere and temperature, the earth generally corrects them. The carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is produced partly by the coal industry, is a fertiliser and can be absorbed by plants and the ocean. The more carbon dioxide there is, the more plant growth there is and, as a result, there is sometimes more animal growth. Throughout its enormously long history, the earth has corrected the imbalances that occur in nature. Therefore, before embarking on costly and often ineffective methods of dealing with today's pollution, we should try to keep the scale of the problem in perspective.
The earth is a water organism—70 per cent. of it is covered by water. The tides and the movement of water have enormous significance for our coasts, and for other coasts around the world. Humanity clings to only about 15 per cent. of the land mass. If we keep in mind that percentage of human activity on our globe, and compare it with the effect that the evaporation of water and the formation of clouds has on radiation and with the absorption of heat from the earth, we begin to see that many of the problems that have been identified have far less significance than we may believe. We tend to measure things against the scale of humanity. We tend to measure pollution within our own immediate geographical areas. We then extrapolate from those facts and produce great proposals for legislation and to change industrial processes way beyond what is necessary or important.
Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment to keep the problem in perspective and to remember that, for every scientist who holds one view, another will hold a balancing view. The smaller voice may well be the voice talking the truth. Galileo's time did not believe that the earth went round the sun, but he could prove that it did, and he said so. His views were so welcome that he was forced to recant by the Church and ended up denying that solution.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest. I would not choose to cross swords with her about Galileo, who I assume is Welsh. I remind her of an old northern saying, "Where there's muck, there's brass." It therefore follows that, where there's brass, there's muck. Does she agree that, by creating lots and lots of brass, we have created infinitely more muck, which, however one sees it, cannot be to the advantage of Wales, the United Kingdom or anybody?
Will she accept that the real problem is to reduce the amount of muck—or its modern version, "pollution"—and to ascertain how we can do that without having too great an economic effect on the industries that produce that muck or on the taxpayer? There is no point in going around saying, "It it not this or that," because there is too much muck and we want to achieve the same amount of brass with less of it.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that he agrees that we do not want to tear up what we have achieved in industry and in the progress in people's standards of living for what could well be false hypotheses. There are plenty of false hypotheses in the scientific world, one of which is the greenhouse effect and the amount of attention that we pay to that effect.
As and when we identify real problems, such as industrial waste being poured into rivers, where we can see that it is killing our fish, we must make those industries stop such practices. We have laws to do that. Where we can be sure that savings in energy can be made by more efficient energy production and new methods, clearly we should do so and the Government should encourage that. However, we should not spend billions of pounds of taxpayers' money and do great harm to industry without knowing what we are doing.
The earth is not a delicate and fragile thing that is difficult to damage. It is resilient and has lasted for thousands of millions of years. A little alteration in terms of earth or water pollution—or even air pollution—will not destroy our planet as the greenmongers would have us believe. There have always been natural climatic changes. I refer now to the dinosaurs—but not those in this place. Dinosaurs are evidence that the climate of the earth changed naturally over time. Our greenhouse effect here and now is tiny in comparison. [Laughter.] I give up.

Mr. John Morris: I am glad of this opportunity to raise the problem of environmental policy as it affects my constituency in the context of the administration and control of pollution in Wales. I join all those who have expressed their concern about the level of pollution in the sea. However, in the few minutes available to me I shall concentrate on the Government's amendment with its strange and nauseating phrase that Her Majesty's Government and Minister "congratulate" themselves
on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern".
That was the very Government who slaughtered the Clean Air Council which I chaired 25 years ago as a young Minister, and the Noise Abatement Council. It is late in the day for the Government to start putting the environment first.
It is my privilege to represent what I regard as an important industrial constituency. Without industry it is nothing. We have two major plants. Employment at the


Port Talbot steelworks has been savaged. Enormous efforts have been made by the unions, the management and me to ensure that the plant survives and investment in the harbour, the concast plant and the new mill flourishes and provides opportunities for my constituents and others to work.
The other major industrial plant is BP Chemicals, which is much newer. It provides employment for a large number of people but on a smaller scale than the steelworks. We are an industrial constituency and I hope that we shall continue to be so. In future, industry must conduct itself in such a way that people's lives are not made a misery. I appreciate that large sums of money have been spent and will be spent locally by management to redress the balance and reduce pollution. However, my constituents continue to be dissatisfied with what they see, feel, smell and hear around them. The result must satisfy them, and that is what worries me about the smugness of the Government's proposals.
People simply will not put up with the standards of yesterday. Children must be able to play in gardens. People must be able to hang washing on lines and leave windows open at night. Cars must not be smothered with soot and the air that we breathe must not be as polluted as it is now. Air pollution is far to frequently a problem in our major industrial areas, and it is certainly a problem in my constituency.
After the problems of last year, I hoped that the problem at BP chemicals at Baglan, which persisted for so many days a few weeks ago, would not be repeated. The House can imagine my horror when I read the strongly worded letter from the chairman of the local authority's environmental committee expressing his anxiety and dissatisfaction. The local authorities in my constituency and elsewhere will do what they can, but the basic problem with pollution is the division of power and the ineffectiveness of existing powers. I fear that, if industry cannot come up to the required standard, it will have to compensate the locality. Compensation will have to be paid for each hour during which standards are transgressed.
We do not live in the era of the pre-Aberfan syndrome, when people were resigned to living in bad conditions. After Aberfan, a programme of land clearance began with which I was proud to be associated later. Before Aberfan, we simply put up with the tips. The same applies today to air and general environmental pollution. Today people simply will not allow the clock to stop in the pre-Aberfan era.
How can standards of pollution below which industries must not fall be measured? What is the acceptable norm? There should be public participation and consultation in making that decision. The standards are not necessarily the same everywhere. I wish that they were. Anyone who has had to spend time in London, even with the successful clean air policy in place, knows that. I pay tribute to the clean air policy. People such as Sir Gerald Nabarro and Mr. Harold Evans, when he was editor of The Northern Echo, played a formidable role in telling people about the importance of clean air and pushing for a clean air policy.
After it got rid of the smog, London made great progress. But even today, if one leaves one's shoes out for two days, there is a layer of dust on them. Unhappily, the

standard of the air varies. I wish that the standard was always as good as that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). It is entirely different from the environment in our industrial constituencies and in London.
Therefore, we must tackle clean air and the environment with the same energy as our predecessors did—I played a small part in it—in tackling problems of burning smoking fuels in our industrial conurbations. The same energy must be applied to find acceptable standards which accord with a reasonable quality of life in our industrial areas.
The basic problem of dealing with pollution is the division of control over it. Local authorities have limited powers. I wrote recently to the chairman of the Health and Safety Executive, who took over three weeks to refer my letter to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The time of the inspector responsible for Wales and the west was so precious last year that no power on earth, not even the private office of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, could make him change the day of his visit to my council. I willingly postponed my holiday to ensure that I was present when the great man arrived from his business in Nottingham or wherever it was. That showed the pressure on that inspector.
Underfunding and undermanning of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is a major scandal. It is peculiar that the inspectorate does not come under the control of the Secretary of State for Wales. I doubled the size of the Welsh Office and ensured that a vast amount of responsibility was transferred to the Welsh Secretary, so I was particularly sorry to learn that he had no control over Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I had to go to the Department of the Environment.
Wales is part of the south-western region. The number of inspectorate personnel based in Wales was recently depleted. The Cardiff headquarters has become little more than an outpost of the south-western region which includes the whole of the Principality and a substantial part of south-western England. The number of inspectors who administer control of pollution measures in Wales was recently reduced effectively from three to one. The obvious result was a deterioration in the inspectorate's response. One gentleman from Cardiff has been seconded to a special project for an indeterminate period, so we shall not have a great deal of help from him. Is the Minister aware of what is happening to the inspectorate in Wales? It is simply not good enough. It is a major step backwards. My constituency and other industrial areas of Wales require the constant vigilance of an effective authority to minimise and control the effects on the population and the environment.
I wish to propose some ideas for the Government's White Paper to be published in the autumn. First, supervision and overall responsibility for pollution and the environment in and around Wales should come under the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not understand why it is not already his responsibility. Perhaps he is not aware of it, but precedents have been set in other areas of policy. The Manpower Services Commission is part of a national body, yet the commission for Wales is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State could attend to that matter in the White Paper.
Secondly, the number of staff in the Cardiff branch of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution should be


increased immediately. Thirdly, local authorities should be given a new role as agents for the inspectorate on a day-to-day basis with statutory powers to impose restrictions on behalf of and in accordance with the policy of the inspectorate. That should ensure a more speedy response when it is needed.
Fourthly, there should be an immediate plan to assess and examine the worst areas of Wales to reach a view on a reasonable standard of and target for clean air in our industrial areas. It would start in the worst areas and be a sort of pollution Domesday book. What is wanted is an assessment of the position and a determination of what standards should be. We can then build on that and we could have a major breakthrough on improving the environment. I concede that it may take a little time to set the right standards and get the right machinery.
The Secretary of State mentioned the 21st century. As we approach the 21st century, people will not accept the standards of yesterday. For too long, fathers and mothers have put up with low standards which are no longer acceptable. We must put all our energies into ensuring that the quality of life is improved everywhere, taking into full account, as I did in my opening remarks, that we live in and represent industrial areas. Ideally standards should be the same everywhere, but I fear that that cannot be achieved.
A great deal could be done, if the Government ceased to adopt the smug attitude reflected in their amendment. Then we could at least target the main areas and have plans to counteract the worst difficulties.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Before I make a brief contribution, I apologise for my late arrival. I was at a meeting of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs which had to approve our report on sea defences in advance of tomorrows' estimates debate on sea defences and the avoidance of sea flood damage in Wales.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) and his two colleagues on enabling us to have this debate. I am sure that we would agree on one thing—that we have debates on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House too infrequently. It would be in the interests of the Principality if we had more. Equally, the hon. Gentlemen will acknowledge that much useful work on Welsh affairs goes on outside the Chamber, because all of them at one time or another have been members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
I declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to Welsh Water plc. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Water Bill. The Bill provided a much tougher regulatory framework than was hitherto in place. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asked him to ensure that the National Rivers Authority brought far more prosecutions against those who break the law than the water authorities did. In doing so, he acknowledged what we did in the Bill. That acknowledgement was confirmed by the moderate and basically sensible speech of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy).
We recognised that the water authorities were both poachers and gamekeepers—both dischargers of sewage and monitors of sewage disposal. The hon. Member for Gower, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, is particularly aware of that, as the Committee undertook an

inquiry into the coastal sewage pollution in Wales. 'The separation of those powers is one of the great provisions of the Water Act 1989. We now have a much tougher regulatory framework than we had before.
Even my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench may acknowledge that the Government learned from previous privatisations and regulatory frameworks which might have been better than they were. As we progressed with privatisations, our approach to regulatory frameworks became more professional, more specific and more effective.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen acknowledged that by saying that the Labour party would keep the NRA. I know that he did not serve on the Standing Committee, but his colleagues on it also said that. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman from Wales on the Bill, will confirm that.
Apparently a Labour Government would subsume the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate in an environmental protection agency, but Labour always wants to subsume things in huge bureaucatic agencies. Why cannot Labour leave something in embryo—I do not want to get into an abortion debate or a debate on embryo experimentation, so I shall say instead, something which has just been born—to develop and get on with its job, instead of planning to reorganise it, should the nightmare occur and a Labour Government take power? They should leave it to get on with its job effectively. I am glad that Labour Members have at least acknowledged that we have done the right thing. Obviously, they themselves had the opportunity to do what we have done in the past, but they did not take it. At least they have graciously conceded that we have done the right thing.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in passing to pollution in eastern Europe, he was his usual generous, gentle self. He did not labour the point, although it could be laboured. In the past year. I have travelled to Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Hungary. Anybody who drives through what were the great and glorious forests of Bohemia and Moravia will see instantly the damage wreaked by acid rain. Anybody who goes to East Berlin will see the pall of smoke hanging over that once great city—hopefully soon to be reunited with West Berlin as a great city again—as soon as they step off the train. The appalling pollution there comes largely from those ghastly Trabant cars—amazing plastic vehicles which do not seem to go anywhere very fast, yet create a huge amount of pollution in the process.
The same is true of Budapest. The two-and-a-half hour train journey from Vienna to Budapest takes one from one of the cleanest urban environments in western Europe to one of the dirtiest and most polluted in eastern Europe. State control and state socialism are no guarantors of a clean environment. The Opposition have evidence of that before their very eyes.
I have alluded to the inquiry into coastal sewage pollution in Wales. I was already a member of the Select Committee when it undertook that inquiry in 1985. One of the points that came out of it was the large number of sea and coastal outfalls in Wales. We have a quarter of the total for the whole of England and the Principality put together.

Mr. Wigley: indicated assent.

Mr. Raffan: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding vigorously. He sat next to me during many of our evidence sessions. He will remember as well as I do the damning statistics that emerged. Only 6 per cent. of the sea outfalls in 1985 were less than 10 years old, 75 per cent. were over 20 years old and 40 per cent. were over 40 years old. I well remember the hon. Gentleman intervening, rightly, to ask the chairman of the Welsh water authority, Mr. John Elfed Jones, about the size of his capital programme—and the time scale of it—to remedy this appalling situation. The hon. Gentleman was told that £75 million would be spent over 15 years. I subsequently asked the chairman:
Perhaps you would rather be in the position of a private company so that you would then be able to borrow according to your needs
and accelerate that capital programme. Mr. Jones replied:
The proposition has immediate appeal.
That is precisely what has happened. The £75 million over 15 years has been replaced by a capital programme for Welsh Water of £500,000 every day every year for the next 10 years. That is a massive capital programme. Would that capital programme have taken place under nationalisation, under Welsh Water in the public sector? That is the crucial question.
Welsh Water plc is no longer subject to external financing limits. It can go to the City, borrow more money more cheaply and accelerate its capital programme—something that all hon. Members are united in wanting. It can bring forward the day when the 40 per cent. of sea outfalls which are over 40 years old, can be replaced. The basic achievement of privatisation is that Welsh Water can now undertake such a massive capital programme.
Welsh Water is no longer subject to external financing limits. If the Labour party were to have its way and return the company to public ownership—should the nightmare occur and it returns to office—the water industry would once again have to compete with housing, education and social services for its share of resources.

Mr. Wigley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with considerable interest. If the borrowing level is taken up by Welsh Water to the extent that he suggests—a level of £150 million to £200 million a year—the interest paid by the authority will have a considerable impact on the Welsh Water ratepayer—hence the £200 per household that they are now being billed. That is the bottom line of the policy advocated by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that Welsh Water is now a commercial company. He will know as well as I what it has achieved in the past six to nine months. It has embarked upon a massive capital programme; it has taken over Wallace Evans, the biggest civil engineering firm in Wales, so that it can commercially exploit its unique expertise, not just in this country but in many countries around the world. I think that Wallace Evans has 50 offices worldwide. Together with the French water company SAUR, Welsh Water has set up a subsidiary, Cambrian Water, of which it owns 50 per cent.—yet another commercial waste disposal venture. Welsh Water is already becoming a much more commercially orientated company.
The cost of the capital expenditure to which I referred will not fall soley on the ratepayer—far from it. I do not want to compound the embarrassment of the Opposition, particularly the Labour party, about privatisation by

alluding to Welsh Water's results last week, but the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will be aware, as I am, that they have been extremely well received in the financial press and elsewhere, and have met with a long silence from the Opposition. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon for giving me the opportunity to make those additional points about the benefits of privatisation. It is a great tribute to Welsh Water that it has adapted so swiftly and effectively to the new commercial environment in which it operates.
The hon. Member for Torfaen was gracious enough tonight to concede the importance and effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate, saying that they would be retained by the Labour party, albeit subsumed in an environmental protection agency. Will the Opposition give a public commitment in the House that, should the nightmare occur—I do not believe that it will, but perhaps we can ask this as a hypothetical exercise—and the Labour party were to return to power in a year or two, Labour will ensure that, if Welsh Water is brought back into the public sector, its capital programme will not be curtailed?
Can a commitment be given that a Labour Government would not indulge in the sort of cuts they indulged in pre-1979, when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said, they slashed capital expenditure on sewage and water works by a massive 50 per cent.? If Welsh Water is brought back into the public sector, a Government would be able to do just that. I hope that the Opposition will be able to give that commitment, because it will be of great interest to the House and of great importance to the people of Wales.
It is always interesting to see the Labour party turn green. I am not sure that its members have not turned green with envy at the Government's environmental record and the fact that we have, through the success of our economic policies which have all owed vastly increased capital expenditure in the water and sewage industries, begun to undo the damage that the Labour party wrought when it was in office. I think that Labour Members may also be slightly sickly green as they contemplate the, albeit remote, possibility of their party returning to office. They must be understandably nervous about how they would begin to compete with, let alone match, our record.
I assure Labour Members that that event will not occur; we will save them from first night nerves, because their first night will never come—the election victory will be ours, and we shall continue the excellent programme that we have carried out so far. Privatisation has accelerated the water industry's capital programmes, our environment cleaner day by day. A capital programme spending £500,000 a day for the next 10 years in Wales is ensuring that the Principality has a much better environment than ever before.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) spoke of our being green with envy and embarrassment. If there is a clash of interest between the Welsh water authority, for which he gave a great hymn of praise and the interests of his constituents in terms of the £200 poll tax being imposed on them, will he speak for Welsh Water or his people and the people of Wales as a whole? We deserve an answer to such questions.
I wholly agreed with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said about the smugness of the Government amendment. We do not perceive in that amendment the Government who are seen in Brussels as the dirty old man of Europe. We do not perceive in it the reductions in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and its low morale, evidenced by the number of resignations.
I wholly concur with the spirit of the speech made by the hon. Member for Meirionnyd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). I congratulate him and fully accept what he said about the need for much greater research funding on pollution from the Welsh Office. I welcome the fact that we in Wales give much greater priority to pollution. When I first came on the political scene, the emphasis was on jobs at all costs. I saw that when Carbon Black polluted my constituency—jobs were then the high point of the agenda. I welcome the change, whether it be that Carbon Black no longer exists or the fact that people revolted against opencast mining, which their predecessors had been prepared to accept.
I accept what the Secretary of State said about the improvements in Wales. That can be seen in the greening of our valleys post-Aberfan, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon, a former Secretary of State, said. We can also see that improvement in the greening of corners of our cities. I congratulate my own city council of Swansea on the tree planting programme that has so transformed the city. The lower Swansea valley was once the most concentrated area of industrial dereliction in the United Kingdom, but improvements have been made.
However, who can doubt that, in many respects, the pollution is much worse? Most people are not worried about the great subjects of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, but local issues. In Swansea, the issue under discussion is the Cwmrhdyceirw quarry already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and the pollution in Swansea bay, mentioned in the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell).
As a boy, I spent most of my summer bathing on the beach at Swansea bay, and used to collect cockles there with my family. Now, no one would dare eat them, even if they were to be found. On the only occasion last year when I ventured on to that beach from my house, which adjoins it. my throat was immediately affected, which is evidence of the bay's deterioration. We accept that Welsh Water and the Government have plans, largely thrust on them by the European Commission. Only one beach in Wales, Pembrey, has been given the European Community's blue flag, and we wish to know more about the timetable for the others.
The Cwmrhydyceirw quarry poses an environmental nuisance, and I agree wholly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and his colleagues said in the Select Committee report, at paragraph 41. For reasons of time I will not go into the report in detail, but it is clear that Welsh Water expressed anxiety about its lack of powers in this area. It is also clear that the quarry has not been and is not being properly managed, and that the local authority has insufficient powers. I am glad that, under the Environmental Protection Bill, licences can be revoked or refused if the licensee is deemed not to be a fit and proper person. I also welcome potential regulations under the Bill

on the import of direct landfill substances. I hope that the Government will respond speedily when the Bill becomes an Act.
It is bizarre that imported heat-treated dried sludge from Switzerland—not, I hasten to add for the benefit of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), from a third-world country—has been imported and sold to farmers as soil conditioner—at a time when sewage sludge from Mumbles is sprayed on land and when such sludge from other local works is dumped in the Bristol channel. Why the difference? Is it because of inadequate resources, or do we lack the technology that must be available in Switzerland?
For most of our people, the environment means whatever has the most immediate impact on them. That puts me in mind of Dylan Thomas's "Return Journey" in which he said that in the first world war people talked about casualties at the front, but the only front that he knew was just in front of his house. The same applies to most of my constituents, who are not concerned with the rather grand subjects of the ozone layer, although they may be worried about Swansea bay. What concerns them more are areas such as Penlan, where motor cycle scrambling makes so much noise that it is hell for the residents. I hope that the Government will put a curb on some of these activities; certainly the police have not given enough priority to tackling this sort of nuisance.
For many people in Portmead and Blaen-y-Maes the immediate environment is menaced most of all by stray dogs and horses. I ask the Government to accept the Lords amendment in respect of dog registration, because of the health hazards of dogs fouling the environment. Environmental health officers in my local authority do not know how many dogs there are or hence how to plan their resources or allocate money for wardens. Horses tend to congregate near schools because of the green areas nearby which provide cheap feed, but they are an immense danger to children: they can stampede, for instance. At present, the local authority can charge only for the bare cost of feed and for vets even when the horses are in a compound. The authority should be given penal powers to cover its full and real costs.
I am delighted that we in Wales are giving environmental matters a higher place on the national agenda, and we shall help to keep them there. We shall press for the resources and equipment which we believe have not yet been fully forthcoming.

Sir Anthony Meyer: That was the first I have heard about horse droppings from Swansea polluting the Irish sea.
I must agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that the terminology of the Government amendment is nauseatingly self-congratulatory. I should have had the utmost difficulty supporting it had I not listened to the persuasive and reasoned speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which he convincingly set out the steps that the Government are taking. There is still a long way to go, and I am anxious to see that they keep travelling down the same road.
The Government claim—backing up that claim with statistics—that our rivers are among the cleanest in Europe. Anyone looking over the Terrace would find that


hard to believe, but the statistics prove it. Our rivers are a great deal cleaner than those that flow through most continental countries.
Our beaches are a different story. It is not good enough to claim that we have no dirty beaches on the ground that we have no beaches at all. To refuse to classify beaches as bathing beaches because they are too filthy to bathe from is a dishonest way of evading our responsibility to clean up. I am sick of being told by one expert after another that Mediterranean beaches are filthy. I was unlucky enough to find myself in Benidorm at the end of August last year for one night. I bathed on the pocket hankerchief of a beach in spotless, crystal clear water. At Villefranche I was able to read the front page of a newspaper lying under four feet of water at the quayside—I doubt whether I could have done that at many of our beaches. We do not keep them clean and it is time that we did.
Anyone alighting from the train at Colwyn bay will find a delightful innovation—a restaurant set up at the edge of the station and serving food of the highest quality. It has a fabulous view over the beach; at high tide the outlook is pleasing, but at low tide it is a good deal less so. One can see the short sea outfalls discharging at what is optimistically called the low water mark, which appears to be about 100 yd above the point to which the sea recedes at low tide. The beach is littered with supermarket trollies. For the life of me I cannot imagine why Britain does not adopt the practice of most continental countries and require a £1 coin to be deposited in the trolley, to be retrieved when it is returned. The beach, in any case, seems a favourite place for leaving them. There are other even less attractive things littering the beach, too.
It will be difficult to persuade my constituents that long sea outfalls, even properly screened, are the answer. They may well be, but people will have to be persuaded that whatever goes out through them has been properly screened and treated.
I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) said about full inland treatment. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I find it hard to argue against water authorities when they tell me that inland water treatment has its own serious drawbacks; it usually results in extensive leaching into the water courses nearby. If we went over to such treatment we might have cleaner beaches but even dirtier rivers, so we would not have made much progress.
The costs of all this cleaning up have been bandied to and fro, as have the failures of the local authorities—a long time ago—and then of the nationalised water boards to take the necessary measures to clean up. Hon. Members who were in the House 10 or more years ago will have to acknowledge that the extreme unpopularity of the water rates featured in a great deal of the mail that we received. Rates were bad enough: water rates were regarded as intolerable. Regardless of party, we have a duty to make people aware that cleaning up the environment will be an expensive business.
I am not enthusiastic about the privatisation of water, but, whether it is privatised or not, we do our electors a disservice if we encourage them to believe that, because of or despite privatisation, water has suddenly become expensive. The plain fact is that it will have to be expensive to pay the interest charges. Whether it competes with other

priorities in the Treasury or for money on the London money markets, water is going to cost us an awful lot of money and we must face up to that.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The debate has shown how well advised my party was in its choice of topic. I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to the spirit of this interesting and in parts well-informed and constructive debate because the subject is not partisan and was chosen in an effort to draw attention to major problems affecting our coasts. Many hon. Members have spoken about their constituencies, and such matters are also relevant to the debate.
People are becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of pollution at sea. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Sir A. Meyer) and other hon. Members mentioned that. Public awareness is so high that people are rightly demanding action. In recent years the quality of our bathing water has deteriorated and the effects of pollution can be clearly seen. Sea discolouration is apparent along the north Wales coast and it is accompanied by a nauseating stench. There are also vast areas of rotting vegetation.

Mr. Keith Mans: I agree that we have much to do to improve the quality of our beaches. However, what evidence has the hon. Gentleman to support the idea that the quality of our water has deteriorated over the past 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Jones: I shall not go down that road now, except to say that the European Commission has prosecuted the United Kingdom over the quality of our bathing waters. The Government have had 10 years to solve the problem and have failed to do so. I shall return to that.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) need not worry about gatecrashing the debate; he made a valuable and constructive speech and I and my colleagues agreed with most of it. As he said, regular visitors see a deterioration in the environment. I shall try to deal with some of the problems that have been mentioned.
A letter sent by Llandudno town council on 28 February 1989 to me, other hon. Members and Welsh local authorities galvanised many of us into doing something about the issue. The letter states:
The Llandudno Council is becoming increasingly concerned about the continual pollution of the North Wales Coastal Waters: the Irish Sea and Liverpool Bay.
Despite concern and outrage prompted by the recent scientific reports, action has not been taken by the Government to prohibit, or even substantially reduce, the practice of dumping human and industrial waste into these waters.
It is hoped that as many MPs as possible will be prompted to ask questions in Parliament and saturate discussion with this issue.
We cannot say that we have saturated discussion with the issue, but at least we have had a debate about it and tried to respond constructively to concerns expressed by many people in our part of Wales.
I have been in touch with most local authorities in north Wales about the issue and every one which has so far responded has expressed the same concern. The problems have been highlighted in the debate and I shall try to sum them up. The first problem is the raw sewage that is discharged into the sea and its effect on bathing amenities. Water turbidity causes problems in the Menai straits


because raw sewage is not diluted and dispersed as quickly as in other areas, where it is washed out to sea and does not come back for a long time.
Hon. Members have mentioned sewage sludge. North West Water plc dumps 85,000 tonnes of sewage sludge into Liverpool bay every year, and there is evidence that such sludge contains unacceptably high levels of heavy metals which can have toxic effects on living organisms. Industrial wastes may contain mercury. Off Ynys Seiriol in my constituency, a cormorant was found to have died from a high concentration of mercury in the brain. Nitrates, phosphates and other chemicals are discharged into our rivers from the land and then reach the sea. Sunlight may react with those phosphates and nitrates to create algae on our beaches. Such matters worry our constituents, but they are not just local or minor matters; they affect both sides of the Irish sea and all countries in Britain. Such problems are not exclusive to Wales. I hope that the experience of people who live in all parts of the United Kingdom can be highlighted to galvanise the Government into further action.
We acknowledge that the Government have responded to the North sea conference. However, that was a reaction to international concerns that were expressed by countries in the European Community. The Government are occasionally prepared to bow to international pressure, but they do not seem to be so ready to bow to pressure in the United Kingdom. That is why we have used the debate to introduce local issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) said, the Government could demonstrate their concern about pollution by agreeing to an intergovernmental conference at ministerial level on problems in the Irish sea. Because of the pressure resulting from such a conference, the Government would have to act much more quickly.
No doubt the Welsh Office is aware of research by the north Wales marine study group which has conducted important surveys in recent years. It is worried about the effect of pollution on sea life. Its members have conducted underwater observations and have been able to highlight some of the problems. The Government amendment has enabled us to widen the debate and that has been to everyone's advantage. However, as hon. Members have said, the amendment is extremely complacent. It is not good enough to place responsibility for cleaning up pollution purely and simply on the shoulders of private industry. The issue is wider than that.
I hope that Welsh Water and other water authorities, whether privatised or not, will spend money on cleaning up our beaches and on providing proper sewerage works. The matter cannot simply be left to private industry. Resources must be devoted to research which will show that work has to be undertaken. When that happens, the Government will have to face their responsibility and work alongside industry. The commitment is enormous and we have discussed a range of issues that require investment. My biggest charge against the Government—especially in terms of their amendment—is one of complacency. It seems to me that they are not prepared to work alongside private industry.
The proliferation of marine algae has caused much local disquiet. We are not sure where it comes from or what causes it, but there should be an in-depth survey, and the Government should fund independent research. If that research shows—as many of us believe that it will—that we

still need to take action, I will then demand from the Government a commitment to play their part and provide resources to clean up our beaches, rivers and environment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): This has been an interesting short debate, and I congratulate Plaid Cymru Members on tabling the motion: this is a subject that interests all hon. Members. Hon. Members who come from the country—as I do—will remember that 20 years ago trout could be seen swimming in roadside streams. Now, although the water may be clear, there are no trout swimming in it. I am pleased to see poppies growing on the roadside again: many hon. Members will remember when they could be seen in the corn, although that is bad farming. It is a joy to see colour in the countryside again, as it is to see some hedges.
I am afraid that the debate has brought forward some of the old scare horses about the environment. I shall use this brief opportunity to knock some of them on the head, at least partially.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn, for instance, referred to mercury in Liverpool. Trace levels of mercury in sewage sludge licensed for sea dumping have fallen from less than 4.2 tonnes in 1976 to 1.1 tonnes in 1986. Mercury concentrates in Liverpool bay fish have fallen substantially, and are within international environmental quality standards.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) used the debate to mount a small political attack. I thank him for his welcome of my return—although I did not appreciate his non-appreciation of my beard, of which Mr. Speaker seemed to think rather more highly. Nevertheless, he should know that Government policy is to allow the wastes about which he complained to be imported only for specialist treatment or incineration, and that transfrontier movement for direct landfill should be exceptional and take place only when permitted by the importing country.
We believe that advanced industrialised countries—those belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—should deal with their own wastes, and that is the line that we are taking in international discussions. It is now Community policy that the Community as a whole should be self-sufficient, as should individual countries. Our intention is to reduce the volume of waste to the environmentally justified minimum.
It is our clear intention that the volume of waste brought to this country—although small when compared with imports by other countries—should be reduced. To that end, enabling powers to prohibit or restrict waste imports are included in the Environmental Protection Bill. The powers are enabling because of the need to agree the detail in negotiations still under way in the EC and the OECD.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spoke of the living conditions of some of his constituents. I came to know that area when I was a candidate in his constituency 20 years ago. I remember listening to a broadcast on Welsh radio about a year ago: a gentleman from Blaengwynfi was speaking about a visit from the then Secretary of State for Wales—my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). He said that my right hon. Friend had done more for the Afan


valley than any previous Secretary of State for Wales, including presumably his own constituency Member. When asked whether he would be supporting the Conservative party he replied, "Good heavens no, I'm a communist." That is the thanks we get, but never mind.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon also referred to the staffing of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. At present there are three HMIP officers in the Welsh Office, and another who is based in Cardiff and involved with air pollution. The HMIP office was created in 1987 and originally had 148 staff in post; it now has 211. It is recruiting hard. The complement has been raised to 250, and inspectors' salaries were increased by 20 per cent. last autumn. They are being kept under review, and we are recruiting actively. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fears are misplaced.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) referred to dolphins. It is known that persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—accumulate in the blubber of dolphins, and they were identified in the body of a young bottle-nosed dolphin found in 1988 in Cardigan bay. However, the general background level of pollutants in the Cardigan bay area was very low, with PCBs below detectable levels. Therefore, there is no obvious source of contaminants.
The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—announced a project to fund analytical work related to the post mortem of cetaceans. The project will run for one year, and the Welsh Office is contributing to the cost. Hon. Members will know that, at the third North sea conference this year, it was agreed to destroy PCBs by 1995 if possible, and definitely by 1999 at the latest.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also referred to the Irish sea in general. In 1988, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—a highly regarded international scientific body of the kind to which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn and others have referred, and which is concerned with all aspects of marine environment in the north Atlantic area—undertook a review of current knowledge of human influences in the Irish sea. His message was clear: it argued that, while there were localised pollution problems in the Irish sea, they were essentially minor, and the resulting problems short-lived. It described the claims of abnormal plankton blooms caused by human activity as unconfirmed or speculative, and said that it had no reason to suppose that observed fluctuations and change in plankton and zoo-plankton were anything but natural. Examination of seal carcases found that seals were accumulating heavy metals and other persistent contaminants, but not at levels likely to cause death.
In what he referred to as a rather emotional speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred to a brownish slick which everyone has seen off Anglesey. There have been reports from local fishermen about this brownish discoloration. As we have heard tonight, it is alleged to have been caused by sewage sludge or by waste from the road construction project at Conwy—the remarkable tunnels for the A55.
An analysis commissioned by the agricultural department at the Welsh Office through MAFF's Caernarfon office ruled out sewage pollution. As for the road construction theory, no dumping has taken place within the past 12 months. The National Rivers Authority is exploring the possibility that the discolouration has been caused by an erosion of boulder clay during the exceptional winter storms, the clay having been kept in suspension. The results of the authority's investigations are awaited.
The motion begins by deploring the dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge in the Irish sea. No industrial waste is dumped in the Irish sea, nor will any be dumped in any of the seas round Britain by 1992. Sewage sludge from north-west England is dumped in the Irish sea under MAFF licence, and that will end—as announced—by 1998. I should point out that assessments made by MAFF about the impact of dumping show that it has no implications for the ecosystem of the Irish sea.
Many, if not all, hon. Members will have felt concern about the pumping of untreated sewage into our seas—more particularly when the outfall is close to the shore, but even when there is a long sea outfall. That is why last year the Government announced a £1.4 billion programme to improve our bathing waters, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced, on 5 March, a new additional programme costing £1.5 billion, whereby all sewage would be treated before being discharged to estuarial or coastal waters. Current measures involve the ending of sewage sludge dumping, and the treatment of all sewage discharged to sea. Some works, such as those at Lavernock—to which the hon. Member for Torfaen referred—will change, because of the change in design, from the proposed long sea outfall to one where sewage will in future be treated.
We shall give priority to introducing treatment for bathing waters that fail the bathing water directive. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the remaining Welsh beaches at Llandudno west shore will comply with the directive by 1993, Rhyl and Kinmel bay by 1994 and the remaining Welsh beaches by 1995. That is an extraordinarily good change. The House will note the enormous sums being invested in cleaning up what we have inherited, and the new freedom that the establishment of the private water companies has given us. We are set for a clean environment under the Government.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 297.

Division No. 285]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carr, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beggs, Roy
Cousins, Jim


Beith, A. J.
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam






Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Fearn, Ronald
Morley, Elliot


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steinberg, Gerry


Illsley, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Janner, Greville
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Turner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Vaz, Keith


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Lamond, James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lewis, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Worthington, Tony


McAllion, John
Wray, Jimmy


McAvoy, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McCartney, Ian



McFall, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Benyon, W.


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Batiste, Spencer
Bowis, John


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bendall, Vivian
Brazier, Julian





Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John


Gorst, John
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Hague, William
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain






Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Needham, Richard
Stokes, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thorne, Neil


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Redwood, John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Ward, John


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, Sir John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shelton, Sir William
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. David Lightbown and


Speed, Keith
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the major programme of investment to be undertaken by the privatised water companies to improve the quality of water and the comprehensive measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern; and looks forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment later this year.

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott: I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [28th March] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 28th March, those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—



(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The motion provides for a total of three hours debate both on the motion itself and on Lords amendments to the Bill. I do not intend to detain the House overlong, as I hope that there will be general agreement that we should move quickly to debating the important issues before us.
I make no apology for asking the House to agree that we should limit the debate on our consideration of these matters to three hours. The House will know that we do not introduce such motions lightly. I am especially mindful of the passionate speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in the debate on the original timetable motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House on Report on 28 March.
The House will expect me clearly to set out why we are taking this further step. The motion is being introduced in the knowledge that the Bill is not an especially sizeable piece of Government legislation—it has only 23 clauses and seven schedules. Nevertheless, it has had a great deal of time devoted to it—I believe, its fair share of time—both here and in another place. To date, it has had 50 hours of debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and a further 30 hours in another place. Much of that time has been well spent as it has provided opportunities for amendments to the original Bill that have been widely welcomed, especially those on the pensions provisions and on the clause dealing with income support in residential homes. We have responded to debate and consultation both here and elsewhere and we have made important changes. There will be further evidence tonight of the Government's willingness to listen to Parliament.
The Bill has had a good run and the timetable motion is being introduced in the knowledge that only a limited amount of business remains. I have no doubt that the House will wish to spend some time debating benefit entitlement for students and, perhaps, the scheme for the recovery of benefit from tort damage awards. However,

the bulk of the remaining amendments made to the Bill by another place are minor and technical and should not long detain us.
I emphasise that it is important for social security issues to be debated regularly and fully in Parliament. The contributions made during debates are almost invariably thoughtful and sincere, although I would not suggest for one moment that it always provides a comfortable time for Ministers or that the Government agree with everything that is said. However, it is important to remember both the limited time that we have available for the business tonight and the fact that there will be other formal occasions on which such debates will arise—for example, those that arise from the annual uprating statement and the associated orders.
I very much hope that the sensible motion for the timetabling of the business is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: In an understandably and desirably short introduction, the Minister referred to minor and technical changes and suggested that the remaining business could be dealt with easily within the proposed three hours. I want to set out the Opposition's reasons for believing that such a timetable is pitifully and unreasonably short.
As hon. Members are only too well aware, the Government have already guillotined the Bill's proceedings. Since then, at least four highly significant changes have been made in another place. In particular, an issue is now developing that could blow up into a serious constitutional argument between this House and another place, especially in the wake of the War Crimes Bill. I am referring to the rights of students, especially postgraduates, to retain entitlement to housing benefit unless adequate alternative compensation is made. As I shall show, that is not being provided for in the Government's proposals. The issue incenses not only the Opposition, but widespread, independent and informed opinion outside this place. It has united 21 full-time academics and 12 university vice-chancellors in another place—mostly on the Cross-Benches—in opposition to the Government. Above all, it is a vital issue affecting the basic interests of hundreds of thousands of students, yet it has never been debated in this place.
We are now being allotted a mere three hours to debate not only the timetable motion, but the 20 Lords amendments that the Government are seeking either to amend or to overturn, plus other Lords amendments. That is the same abuse of the principles of parliamentary debate as Lord Justice Purchas complained of so bitterly last week, when he excoriated the Government for what he called wholesale and unregulated powers taken by the Secretary of State over the administration of the social fund. In his judgment, he assumed that Homer nodded—in other words, that Parliament had been asleep. In fact, we were not asleep; we were simply overriden by the juggernaut of the Government's guillotine. I advise the judge—or, indeed, any other judge—that on this occasion Homer is not nodding. We are protesting with the greatest vigour at our disposal about what we might call the laughable—if it were not so objectionable—truncating of the time for debate of what is fast becoming a significant constitutional issue.
It is not only the manifest and blatant injustice of withdrawing the entitlement of students to housing benefit that is being squeezed into a three-hour debate; there is also the significant losses being inflicted on disabled people and the nasty little issue of the Government's proposal to deduct social security benefits from the Motor Insurers Bureau's compensation payments. That is on top of the Government's action in deducting social security benefits from compensation payments for industrial injury, so that the injured worker ends up with very little—and nothing for his pain and suffering. That matter also needs adequate time for debate.
In addition, there are the Government's highly objectionable proposals to restrict entitlement in cases of error. The McKiernon judgment laid down that the rule that limited claims to five years from the time of the industrial injury was ultra vires. The Government are now advancing the constitutionally dubious doctrine that what was ruled to be illegal shall be made retroactively legal. Furthermore, the Government are introducing a new doctrine on the backdating of claims. They propose that a successful claim shall be backdated only to the date of the commissioner's decision rather than to the actual date of the claim itself. In other words, if the Department of Social Security gets the law wrong, the new law will deem that it got it right up to the point that it was told of its error. That is manifest nonsense. Those matters, too, urgently require adequate time for debate.
There are two other aspects that are new to the Bill since it left this House. One concerns the real danger of eviction of elderly people from residential and nursing homes as a consequence of what is still a major shortfall in income support, even after the Secretary of State's concession. The other is the £10 disregard for lone parents, to give them an incentive to claim maintenance from the absent parent. A whole range of other issues arise in the 20 Lords amendments. One is equal pensionable ages for men and women in respect of money purchase schemes. That is a major issue, if ever there was one, but we may not even have time to debate it tonight.
Other matters clearly require further and proper debate, but that will be denied by the guillotine. It will preclude discussion of the many outstanding social security issues, such as the continued freezing of child benefit, and abuse of natural rights under the social fund—which is regularly the subject of judicial attack. There is also the removal of all benefit rights from 16 and 17-year-olds, and the worsening plight of homeless families. To restrict debate on all the Lords amendments to only three hours makes a mockery of the principle of adequate parliamentary debate. To do so when one group of those amendments has huge financial implications strikes at the heart of our further and higher education system, and has never previously been debated in this House is, by any standards, an outrage.
I cannot believe that every Conservative Member denies that we are justified in rejecting the guillotine with a vote. Our only reason for not doing so is that we do not intend to collude with the Government in restricting even further the time available for debate. It is wrong and unprincipled to confine debate on 20 Lords amendments to three hours. Having made our position clear, we intend

to concentrate debating time and the maximum number of votes on the subject of those amendments, to which we are so strongly opposed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This is another preposterous motion to guillotine debate on issues of enormous importance to people who crave our help and concern for problems that most right hon. and hon. Members have never had to face. The problems of disabled students, to which several of the Lords amendments refer, alone merit a three-hour debate in this House.
There need be no speculation about the effect of the Government's motion. It will make impossible any debate on many of the amendments and that alone is a parliamentary outrage, yet even the amendments that will be dealt with must be debated with insulting brevity in what remains of the three hours the Government are allowing for debate on the motion and the amendments as a whole. It is put to me by one severely disabled person that even some of the most dictatorial regimes across the world allow more consideration of disputes over social policy than this House will be permitted by the motion before us.
The more we try to do justice to any particular amendment this evening, the less time we shall have to debate others. That happened when our debates on Report and Third Reading on the Bill were guillotined and I want to describe briefly just one of the consequences. We had no time then—just as we shall have no opportunity this evening, despite the summary dispatch of other issues—even to discuss a provision the Government inserted into the Bill that will cheat of disablement benefit a huge number of people who have been deafened by their work or who suffer from industrial asthma.
In the case of my constituent Mr. Frank McKiernon, now aged 74 and a victim of occupational deafness, it was unanimously held by the Court of Appeal that the Government acted illegally in denying him disablement benefit. They were also refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The Government's reaction to the referee's decision was not one of apology but of defiance. Having been given the red card, as it were, they resolved to sit it out on the pitch and then to use force majeure to change the rule book.
The Government decided, without giving their intentions any publicity, to use this Social Security Bill to reverse Mr. McKiernon's legal victory in the Court of Appeal. The guillotining of our consideration of the Bill had helped the Government both to avoid publicity for a tactic that is bitterly resented by the disabled people affected and to duck the debate that there ought to have been, or should be now, in this House.
The Government will save more than £100 million by their action, while countless thousands of deaf people and victims of industrial asthma will have the right given to them by the Court of Appeal taken away. Warm praise is due to Peter Rosenfeld of Wythenshawe citizens advice bureau for his work on Mr. McKiernon's case. My constituent's legal adviser, Richard Poynter, to whom great credit must also go for his handling of the case, says in a scorching criticism of the Government:
For the DSS to change the law retrospectively in order to cheat a disabled old age pensioner of his court victory is an act of petty spite. Once again, the Department is putting itself above the law by changing the rules to suit itself after the


event rather than obey them while they are in force. Its vindictive action against Mr. McKiernon shows the Government's contempt for the rule of law.
That is a grave charge against the Government, one that merits vigorous debate, but there will be no opportunity even to express a view.
By their guillotine, the Government have succeeded in enacting the most odious kind of retrospective legislation, of which Lord Boyd-Carpenter, from the Conservative Benches in another place, described as "oppressive" and which everyone else who knows what is happening condemns as a shocking abuse of power.
It would be a stain on the reputation of this House for the Government to go unchallenged. Nothing more clearly shows the harm that has been done already by guillotining our consideration of the Bill and the authoritarian nature of the Governnent's further curtailment of parliamentary scrutiny of its provisions.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wholly applaud the attitude taken by the official Opposition in forgoing an extensive debate on the guillotine motion, so that we can spend the valuable time remaining considering the substantive issues that are before us.
I accept that Government need to resort to a guillotine in Committee and put their proposals to the House when a Bill is first presented. Sometimes, Opposition parties collectively decide to use time as a weapon. If I were the Government, in such cases I would reluctantly resort to the guillotine—but this evening we face a very different situation. The membership of the House of Lords includes many people of high standing and of considerable expertise in particular areas. That is particularly true of their knowledge of the academic world, and many of the amendments before us have a direct bearing on our educational system and the way that students are financed. For this House to skate over decisions taken by the other place, after full consideration, is wrong and is in a completely different category from the guillotines to which Governments resort when a Bill is being considered in Committee.
I have never been behind the curtain of secrecy in any Government Department. The Minister may say that I am the better for that. Perhaps it will never happen but I live in hope. However, the Minister's Department has the benefit of social security Bills each year. This issue will not be left to languish for three or four years. We cannot anticipate what will be in the next Queen's Speech, but unless something unusual happen the Department knows that there will be an opportunity in the next Session to address these important issues within a more appropriate time scale. The Department therefore has no excuse for rushing through these provisions, which will result in ill-digested legislation.
I do not know what power Ministers have over the authorities of the House and the Leader of the House. However, social security matters are getting slightly out of hand. The courts of the land, as well as Opposition Members, are now saying with monotonous regularity that the means by which we are implementing technical changes to a very technical social security system is not good enough. The Government's ill-digested legislation

will lead to future problems. They will have to introduce yet more guillotines if they want future social security Bills to reach the statute book. Conservative Members should also be worried; their constituents will suffer from the effects of ill-digested legislation.
This is an issue of the House of Commons. Whatever view I may take of the contents of the Bill, the House is right to object strongly and loudly at its treatment. If we do not object, what will happen? The trend will get worse. I do not know whether it is the Department or the Leader of the House who keeps saying, "Don't worry; we'll slip this through in three hours. We did it last year and we got away with it; we had only a few court cases to clear up as a result. We've got to get our timetable through, so don't worry about that." It is a scandalous way to deal with legislation. If hon. Members did not take the opportunity to say so at this stage, it would be a great disgrace, and we should be doing a great disservice to the House of Commons.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I shall be brief, in the interests of allowing hon. Members to debate the important amendments that have come to us from another place. However, I must repeat what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said at the beginning: timetable motions are not tabled lightly. The motion, however, provides us with sufficient time to consider the amendments.
The Bill has been given a fair amount of parliamentary time, both here and in another place. It will lead to changes in social security benefits for the disabled and provide greater protection for members of occupational pension schemes. The Bill includes interim measures to help lone parent families to obtain maintenance. It also makes changes to the law relating to income support and various other benefits, including national insurance contributions.
It is a short Bill; it contains 23 clauses and seven schedules. Eighty hours of debate have already been devoted to it. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to a number of social security matters, as well as to the Lords amendments. I remind him that we are debating not the Bill as a whole but the Lords amendments. He referred to the McKiernon case, as did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I remind them that Mr. McKiernon was granted an award last week, including substantial arrears.
There will be an opportunity for the House to debate a number of the detailed issues raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who, I know, has a particular interest in disabled students. As long as we make progress, we shall have time adequately to consider the Lords amendments. I do not apologise for the number of Government amendments that have been brought here from the Lords for consideration. The vast majority are minor, technical changes. The House understands the complexity of the law, notably the law relating to pensions. I repeat thal we regret having to introduce a timetable motion. However, it is important for the smooth conduct of both the remaining stages of the Bill and parliamentary business as a whole. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: No. 1, after Clause 2 insert the following new Clause—

Income support: disabled students
 . The following paragraph is inserted at the end of paragraph (c) of section 20(3) of the 1986 Act—
(cc) he is a disabled person and he is participating in a course of higher education and he fulfills the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection;".

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and the Government motions to disagree with those Lords amendments.

Mr. Scott: I ought to explain that, when Mr. Speaker's original selection list was issued, Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were to be considered alongside Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As a result of discussions through the usual channels, it was agreed that it would be more convenient if we split consideration of the amendments.
This group of amendments brings us to the issue of students' entitlement to social security benefits. Wearing my hat as Minister for Disabled People, I initially approached Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 3 with some sympathy. They relate to the position of disabled students and how we propose to define and indentify those who will remain eligible for income support and housing benefit. Despite my sympathy, however, I intend to explain why I believe that the amendments should not remain on the face of the Bill. May I also explain briefly why we have taken the unusual step of making proof copies of the social Security Advisory Committee report on the draft student loan amendment regulations available to the House before the regulations are laid.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has been a good deal of speculation in the press about the content of the committee's report, much of it wide of the mark. There were also a number of references to the report during the debates in another place. In these circumstances, and in view of the interest that hon. Members have already demonstrated in the subject, we thought that it would be helpful and to put proof copies of the SSAC's report in the Library and to make copies available in the Vote office in order to ensure that the House was as fully informed as possible before today's debate. It would, of course, have been inappropriate for the Government to lay the regulations before the House had taken a view on amendments that would affect the scope of the regulations. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that this unusual step was sensible and helpful.
The amendments seek to introduce a definition of a disabled student, based on the criteria used for the local authority register of disability. I have already said that I

have some sympathy with the intentions underlying the amendments. However, they are seriously defective and I shall seek the House's agreement to overturn them. Rather than quibbling about the precise technical drafting of the amendments, I shall confine my comments to the intention that lies behind them, which I understand.
I am certainly aware of the concerns expressed by hon. Members and their Lordships about the position of certain disabled students under the new arrangements for student support, which will take effect from the next academic year. We, too, recognise the special circumstances of students in vulnerable groups, including the disabled. We have always intended to preserve their entitlement to housing benefit and income support. Our views have differed only in defining what we mean by a disabled student for the purposes of benefit entitlement.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained what our original proposals were and our reasons for putting them forward. The draft regulations that were referred to the SSAC in February provided for the continuation of income support and housing benefit entitlement for those students who meet the criteria for the disability premium and, additionally, any student who had previously met the definition of a disabled student under existing income support regulations.
In practice, we expect most—if not all—students who have met that income support definition to meet the new one. However, because the old definition is based on the decision of an adjudication officer, it could not be imported into the housing benefit system. The housing benefit scheme operates without adjudication officers and it was therefore important to establish clear and straightforward qualifying conditions which it would be easy for local authorities to apply efficiently.
The criteria for the disability premium are based on the receipt of one or more of the disability benefits, long-term incapacity for work or registered blindness. These criteria are now well established in the income-related benefits and are being successfully applied both by local authorities and by local Department of Social Security offices. We felt that the criteria would cover a sufficiently broad spectrum of disability to pick up those students who face significant extra living costs because of their disability. Moreover, they could be clearly expressed in regulations and would be familiar both to claimants and to those administering the schemes. The House will have noted from the copies of the report that have been placed in the Library that the Social Security Advisory Committee also believed the definition to offer a reasonable and practicable yardstick.
The existence of the premium structure in the income-related benefits recognises the fact that certain groups of people face additional financial burdens. The disability premium is no different in that respect. However, I should stress that neither the disability premium nor disability benefits generally are intended to cater for the special educational needs of students with disabilities. In our proposed definition we therefore sought to identify students who face additional daily living costs that were not necessarily consequent on their attendance at a course of education.
I am sure that hon. Members who have studied these affairs will not need reminding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has substantially enhanced the financial assistance available


through the disabled students allowance. Those improvements will provide a good deal of support for disabled students to help them with their particular educational needs.
A number of debates have now taken place on disabled students—during our proceedings on this Bill and during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. In those debates the position of deaf students was of particular concern. Indeed, their Lordships' debate on the amendments before us focused almost entirely on those students, although the amendments would go substantially wider.
In one respect, however, I believe that the criteria suggested by the amendments would not go far enough towards meeting their Lordships' wishes. It would not be possible to identify deaf students in Scotland. Registration with the local authority of the kind operated in England and Wales does not exist north of the border, and there is no register of any sort for the deaf. It would therefore be impossible under those amendments for housing benefit officers and DSS administrators to identify the group at issue.
We have considered carefully the concerns expressed in both Houses and those voiced by organisations representing deaf people. As a result, I am pleased to report to the House that we propose to consult the local authority associations on draft regulations which will preserve the income support and housing benefit entitlement of students who are entitled to a disabled students allowance by reason of deafness. Incidentally, under these arrangements we would include any student who has such an additional requirement indicated on his notice of award, even if, because of the means of testing of the disabled students allowance, the student was not actually entitled to payment of that allowance.
That criterion will be additional to those that we have already proposed, and we will aim to have it in place for the start of the next academic year, subject to the consultation with the local authority associations. To allow adequate time for the consultation, I propose to lay the necessary regulations, which will be subject to the negative procedure, after the main body of regulations.
We believe that an extension of the present proposed arrangements to include deaf students who are entitled to a disabled students allowance recognises the needs and concerns expressed in this Chamber and elsewhere. In view of the Government's willingness to meet the concerns voiced on behalf of deaf students, and bearing in mind the defective nature of the amendments, I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 both involve privilege.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Time for this debate is now so strictly rationed that I must necessarily deal only very briefly with these important amendments. In doing so, I note that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), which would have had our support, has not been selected for debate.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and me, the hon. Gentleman is a trustee of the fund that Lord Snowdon so generously founded to help meet the costs incurred by students with disabilities for which there is no statutory

provision. Work with that important fund strongly emphasises the truth that all such students by definition—and not least those who are deaf—have problems over and above those experienced by the generality of students. That is why I warmly welcomed the Lords amendments when they were accepted in the other place.
The Government oppose the Lords amendments in the terms in which they are drafted. In the case of the Minister for Disabled People, I am sure that he does so with some serious and sincere misgivings. The Minister has clearly lost at least part of a battle with the Treasury, and my purpose this evening is to make our contribution to ensuring that the overwhelming public support for the Lords amendments is properly reflected in this House.
7.45 pm
I sometimes have the feeling that, if the Lords were to dare even to amend factual or spelling errors in their legislation, Social Security Ministers would now be made to move,
That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In supporting the Lords amendments, we on the Opposition Benches are concerned to correct now the unacceptable effects of the Bill as it left this House and to vouchsafe to all students who are disabled the retention of their entitlements to housing benefit and income support.
The Government have recently stated that deaf students are among those least likely to incur extra weekly costs because of their disabilities and, therefore, that they should not continue to receive such help. That is not true. By design, housing benefit and income support are not intended to cover additional costs. They are income maintenance benefits and, in fact, the Government failed in the other place to respond to a direct challenge made to them by Lady Darcy de Knayth on this point.
The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has shown that, unlike other students, those who are deaf cannot top up their maintenance grants with earned income. They have to spend longer on their studies due to communication difficulties and, even if part-time or casual work in vacations or in the evenings is not an impractical option for them, they are seen by many employers as "difficult" employees. That is because they often have to rely on lip-speaking or sign language interpreters for effective communication. The Minister for Disabled People knows all this as well as I do, just as he knows that, by its very nature, part-time and casual work for students—which is often waitressing, bar or reception work—is not always suitable for deaf people.
There is much statistical evidence that deaf people not only find it harder to obtain jobs but are, on average, paid less than people who can hear. In that regard, deaf students face problems similar to those faced by other disabled students whose vulnerability is already identified. They are undoubtedly much more likely to be unemployed or underemployed than able-bodied people with the same qualifications. There is, of course, no shortage of able-bodied students looking for part-time or casual work. That is just one of the difficulties in which students with disabilities find themselves today.
From many recent case studies undertaken by the RNID, I want to cite just one to illustrate the way in which deaf students, through no fault of their own, can be worse off than their peers. A deaf student at London university


had numerous applications for part-time and casual work rejected. At long last, her persistence was rewarded by the offer of a job handing out magazines at tube stations in the mornings. But she was unable to keep the job, as it involved phoning in each morning at 5 am to confirm that she was coming and to receive details of the station at which she would be required to work that day.
In a letter to Lord Henderson of Brompton dated 17 May, Baroness Blatch for the Government referred to the problem of providing straightforward criteria
which can be clearly expressed in regulations and readily understood by those who administer the benefits and, indeed, by those who might claim them.
But that is not a problem as far as deaf students are concerned.
The Minister said that he will now be consulting local authorities about definition, but is it not already solved? The clinically accepted levels at which people are judged to have a significant hearing loss can be used. Those levels, approved by the British Society of Audiology, were initiated by the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf. Their use would be a straightforward basis for assessing entitlement to the retention of existing benefits. All hearing-impaired students who can benefit from hearing aids must have regular audiograms and the proof that they offer could be simply understood by those administering benefits. I hope that the Minister will accept that the RNID, in its briefing for this debate, has already provided the way forward in solving the difficulties about definition to which he referred.
In supporting the Lords amendments, we are not asking for deaf students now to have their educational needs subsidised by social security payments. On the contrary, we are saying that deaf students should not have to use for other purposes the money given to them for essential communication support and equipment in the course of their studies. Before the introduction of the new allowances, deaf students often had to use their maintenance grants to provide educational support. Unless they all retain existing benefits, as I hope will now very soon be confirmed, further to the Minister's welcome statement, the opposite will happen and they will be left in financial hardship.
In a letter that I received today, Lord Renwick states that the Dyslexia Educational Trust is trying to make a similar case on behalf of dyslexics. I am sure that there are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who will want to help if parliamentary opportunities occur to argue the trust's claims. Nothing in all my years in this place gave me more pleasure than to legislate on the educational needs of dyslexics in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Minister clearly does not intend to help them now. Sadly, he said nothing that took account of the claim of the Dyslexia Educational Trust for very urgent consideration of the needs of dyslexic students.
I should like the Government to think very carefully again about definition. In the case of students who are deaf, we are discussing perhaps no more than 300 whose problems are already daunting enough without adding to those of any one of them by rejecting the Lords amendments. The cost of helping them all is minuscule. In his statement the Minister said nothing about the anticipated cost, but it is clearly very small. He knows as well as I do that disabled students passionately want to succeed, by their studies, in exchanging dependence on social security for the independence of having a job and

becoming a taxpayer. It would be wrong to mock their brave efforts by rejecting the opportunity to help all of them given to us by the Lords amendments
If the Government refuse to listen to those who support the Lords in their amendments, I hope that the other place will stand by them if they are not satisfied with the response that we are given.

Mr. John Hannam: I very much welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People about deaf students. I have been very concerned that the Government were taking the wrong path in seeking to exclude deaf and dyslexic students from entitlement to income support and housing benefit. We had been given repeated assurances at meetings of the all-party disablement group and on the Floor of the House that disabled students would retain entitlement to social security benefits.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) gave that assurance during the Committee stage of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. In a letter on 15 January to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, he stated:
I do not believe that the loans scheme will penalise deaf students or those with disabilities. On the contrary, the terms of the scheme—retention of benefit entitlement—are designed with their needs very much in mind.
There was no question of only some disabled students getting the benefit and it was therefore a bit of a surprise and a disappointment to find a different definition of disability introduced in the draft regulations. That definition would have excluded deaf students while entitlement to the disabled students allowance, which the Government have generously increased and extended, included all those disabilities that cause extra costs and earnings problems for students.
The argument put forward to me in a parliamentary answer on 7 March was that deaf students are unlikely
to have additional weekly living expenses because of their disability … that income support and housing benefit are intended to meet."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168; c. 681.]
I am pleased that that argument has now been overturned because it was completely illogical to say that those benefits are not and never have been designed to meet extra disability costs. They are, of course, income maintenance benefits.
As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, much of the casual and part-time work for students is in restaurants, bars and in reception work in hotels. Those are not usually suitable jobs for deaf people or dyslexic students. Those students take much longer to study at college or university and they must work extra hours catching up on their notes for their lectures and tutorials. They do not have the opportunity to work part-time, even if jobs were suitable for them.
I understand the definition problems that certainly confronted my right hon. Friend the Minister and which benefit officers might face in identifying those groups with learning difficulties. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) tabled an amendment which was not selected. It was drawn up in conjunction with organisations representing deaf and dyslexic students and it was a genuine attempt to provide some criteria that would be useful for the assessment by benefit officers.
The question of cost should not really enter this matter. We are talking of only about 300 deaf students and probably a similar number of dyslexic students. No one in this House would want those deserving participants in higher education to be placed in an invidious position.
When talking about numbers, it bothers me that little accurate information is available about the number of disabled students in higher education. I hope that, in future, a much more detailed attempt will be made by the Department of Education and Science and my right hon. and hon. Friends to examine that matter and carefully to monitor the effect of any of the changes on the number of disabled students. I sincerely hope that we shall not see a reduction in the number of disabled university students.
Notwithstanding the very welcome concession by my right hon. Friend, I hope that we shall not forget dyslexic students and others with learning difficulties. I am sure that that matter will come back into focus. I hope that we shall look at their position again. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has always been most helpful in considering the problem of deaf students. His announcement will certainly be wholeheartedly welcomed by people concerned with deaf students. I congratulate him and I shall be happy to support him in the Lobby tonight.

8 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wholeheartedly support the pleas that were made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and the amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Exeter and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I had hoped that hon. Members would have a chance to discuss that amendment in detail, but we cannot do so because it has not been selected. We can do nothing about it.
I hope that the Minister will say more about the consultations that the Government have announced. He is right that there is no register of deaf students in Scotland. If there are to be such consultations, I hope that the system north of the border will get the benefit of any agreements or changes that flow from the consultations. I should be obliged if the Minister would say a word about that matter and reassure me. I agree with the hon. Member for Exeter on the need to monitor the position. If the Government are minded not to heed what has been said in this House and in the other place and intend to stick to their guns with this proposal, I hope that we shall get an assurance that there will be careful monitoring in the coming months and years to make sure that the number of students does not drop as a result of additional financial difficulties.
The Government have made no case in this argument, which is essentially about administrative convenience. I do not underestimate that; I do not wish to make light of the difficulties. However, the amendment to which I referred is a good attempt to try to categorise in clear, definable and understandable terms to those who follow these things, the extension of the definition of students with disabilities. It is difficult to balance that against the individual needs of students. The amendment, the discussions and the suggestions that we have heard are perfectly reasonable, sensible and workable ways in which to proceed.
If hon. Members stick to the proposal as it stands and disagree with the Lords amendments, we shall have a

system that is administratively more convenient and easier to oversee, but it is inevitable that individuals will lose out substantially because their circumstances are not properly addressed by the broad brush approach that the Government are taking.
I agree with everything that hon. Members have said, and I hope that the Government will take account of it. The number of students about whom we are talking cannot possibly mean that the amount of money and resources to be deployed are an issue. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the arguments that have been put so logically and lucidly.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I was very happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in backing the amendment. I too was sorry that the amendment was not selected, because it has a number of possibilities for debate and would have been helpful in the theatre of disabled students. However, the point that we are able to debate is the excellent proposal that was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister, which will assist deaf students.
I must at once declare several interests. My first interest, apart from those who are profoundly deaf, is that I sincerely hope and believe that, in the foreseeable future, which should be very soon, deafness will not be considered a handicap any more than short sight, which can be fully corrected by spectacles, is considered a handicap. We have a large gulf between the situation today and that perfect position that I outlined. That gulf, I hope, is being bridged by new provisions of hearing aids.
The correct hearing aids exist, but people are simply not getting them. That is due to large defects in the system, which I have outlined to the House before and I shall not go into it again, but I do not mean to stop pressing that cause. We should be able to obtain hearing aids on the high street, just as readily as we can obtain spectacles. A surgeon wrote to me in horror, asking:
Miss Nicholson, how could you be proposing this? Do you wish us to end up like the United States of America, where people can buy hearing aids in the supermarket?
I most certainly do, because easy access to appropriate hearing aids means that most deaf people will not have to be considered handicapped. Once one has a proper hearing aid or proper spectacles, one is not handicapped.
I do not for a moment turn aside from the enormous and permanent difficulties that the profoundly deaf will always face. Even if, perhaps, that a large proportion of people who are partially hearing—or course, that includes those with a decibel loss above 45 decibels—have the correct hearing aids, they will need additional aids also. If we identify the need for income support and for housing benefits, additional money is required, because, to wake up in the morning, they need a different alarm clock. One may need something unique and special under one's pillow to bump one awake. One may need help with one's doorbell or telephone.
The great problem with being a student—I recall it so well from my time in the Royal Academy of Music—is that one never has any money. To get additional helps and aids, one must find the money somewhere. The rest of the world may not be able to supply them. How excellent it is that this new proposal will give the funds to provide additional aids for students.
As other hon. Members have already mentioned, the great problem is finding employment. As we all know, finding employment for the disabled is excruciatingly


difficult throughtout their entire would-be working lives. I say "would-be working lives" because, when students stop studying and seek work, whether they are leaving school, higher education, college or university, they have four or five times the difficulty of able-bodied students with no handicap. That is why it is so difficult for deaf students and many other disabled students to find work. It is really tough for them to try to earn their living during vacations, even though people with some form of deafness are marvellous employees, just as any other student is a good employee. Society's bias against disabled students, rather than the students themselves, is at fault.
Is it not true that one cannot look upon a human being as someone who is disabled? One sees a human being who has one or more than one motor function that is functioning at a lesser level than that of other people's, and that is all there is to disability.
We need money for disabled students who have a degree of deafness, in particular until proper hearing aids are readily available on the high street to people who need them. We shall always need additional help for deaf students because of their great difficulties in finding employment until employers throughout the British Isles are prepared to set aside their biases, use the grants that the Government have put forward for adapting their workplaces, and make employment more generally available.
The difficulties of definition have already been referred to. It has been suggested that graphs of hearing loss might be available to authorities, which could then decide who was aurally disabled. The great problem is that only a tiny fraction of those who need hearing aids obtain them. That means that only a fraction of those who need aid will receive a grant. Therefore, I beg my right hon. Friends and anybody else who is concerned about this matter to concentrate hard on considering how on earth we can get those readily available gadgets to everybody who needs them. All who need such aids would then have the appropriate graphs, which would be relatively easy to study and to define.
I do not believe for a moment that we are talking about 300 students—because there is such a pool of undefined hearing loss, we are talking about many more. The pity is that, if they do not catch what is going on, some of our brightest people may under-achieve. Deaf students, deaf youngsters and deaf older people significantly under-achieve, which is why we must think hard about this whole area.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People most sincerely. I thank also the chairman of the all-party disablement group, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for his unremitting work at all times for all categories of disabled people. He is a most remarkable colleague.

Mr. Jack Ashley: It is difficult for me to speak now, because I appreciated that compliment from the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), but I do not agree with some of her points. She is well-meaning and does a great deal for deaf people, but when she speaks about hearing aids being available in the high street, I must warn the House that we do not want deaf people to have to pay the price of private hearing aids. We want good hearing aids

to be provided free of charge all the time to all deaf people. I am worried by the idea of hearing aids on sale in the high street. I know that the hon. Lady is seeking to help, and I admire her aims, but the private hearing aid industry must not be allowed to make a profit out of deaf people.
I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People are present. I give them clear notice that many deaf people would object violently to any incursion into the provison of free hearing aids. I am sure that they will accept and understand that point.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West said that deafness should not be regarded as a serious handicap. Again, I appreciate her intentions, but the fact is that deafness is a grave and serious handicap, and it must be recognised as such. It is a devastating disability. Although it is true that a hearing aid can correct a slight hearing impairment and that those who are hard of hearing can be helped, a hearing aid is not a magic wand that can restore full facility to all deaf people.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that there are many people who, like myself, are totally and irreversibly deaf and who have no hearing at all. I cannot even hear my own voice. No hearing aid can help me. Many other people like me cannot be helped by hearing aids, either. It is therefore wrong to imply that deafness is not a serious handicap; it is a grave and serious handicap. Even those who are hard of hearing find that that is a difficult handicap. I warn the House and the hon. Lady that deaf people must not be discriminated against because they can deal with and handle their handicap. I think that that is the thrust of what the hon. Lady meant.
8.15 pm
I had prepared a speech, but I do not have the time to deliver it now, because I have taken up too much time on that problem. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for what he has said this evening. I welcome the concession that the Government have made, because it is important for deaf and disabled people.
I should like to put on the record a disturbing figure that is a reason for helping deaf people. Each year, only 100 deaf and hearing-impaired students enter higher education, of whom only 10 are profoundly deaf, yet in the years when those students were born, about 700 profoundly deaf babies would have been born. The fact that only 10 out of 700 of those young people enter higher education is a shocking and terrible indictment of our university system. Profoundly deaf people are being denied the opportunity of an education.
I do not have the time to describe the Bill's many flaws. However, in his usual precise way, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will attack the Bill with all due vigour over a wide area. Although I have been critical of the Government and the Bill, I welcome the concession that they have made. I thank them for their recognition of the problems of deaf and disabled people. Therefore, although there will be more criticism of the Bill, for now I thank the Government very much.

Mr. Scott: I begin by expressing my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the warmth of his welcome for the concession that I was able to announce. I was mildly surprised that some other hon. Members did not seem to recognise that


we have, in practice, solved the problem for deaf students. I hope that, on reflection, the whole House will warmly welcome the steps that we have taken.
Consultation with the local authorities will not delay the introduction of the provisions in any way. If they are in place at the beginning of the academic year, that will meet the need. We are under a statutory duty to consult the local authorities on housing benefit matters.
I explained earlier that the Lords amendments are defective. My advice is that if the House were to follow the advice of some Opposition Members and pass their Lordships' amendment, they would effectively exclude all claimants, other than disabled students, from income support and housing benefit. I am sure that that was not their Lordships' intention, but I cannot possibly advise the House to support their amendment.
However, I did not want to dwell on that aspect, I should rather deal with the intention behind it, and as I have said, I have some sympathy with their Lordships' intention and well recognise the difficulties that deaf people face. I welcome also the growing awareness in society of the problems faced by deaf people. For too long, the problems of disabled people were a subject for amusement. There is now increasing recognition of and an increasing response to the needs of deaf people in society. I am sure that we have further to go, but we are making progress.
The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has set up a new company, Sound Advantage, to ensure that, at the frontiers of technology, facilities are available to deaf people to improve the quality of their life and—perhaps most importantly—to enable them to enter employment and to enjoy the independence and self-respect that holding down a job can provide to those who suffer from disabilities of one sort or another.
On a trip to the United States last year, I was impressed when I visited the California Relay system. It is a telephone exchange for the deaf, which enables all the deaf and hard-of-hearing people throughout the state of California to have access to the state telephone system. Other states in the United States are developing such a provision for deaf people. I am happy to say that, as a result of my visit, and of subsequent consultation with Oftel and British Telecom, the development of a national service along similar lines for deaf people will begin here in the autumn.
I was most struck not that California and its telephone system provided a social service for the deaf and hard of hearing but that they enabled many thousands of deaf people in California to enter employment, hold down jobs and acquire independence. We are making progress, but we do not underestimate the difficulties that deaf people still face in our society. We must all do more to help them.
I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about the difficulties that face deaf students. It is precisely because we recognise those difficulties that we have introduced the concession to enable them to receive income support and housing benefit. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we might have a medical test to establish entitlement to benefit. We already stretch the medical manpower resources severely in assessing other types of disability. I should be reluctant to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, particularly as a much better method is available to us.
When students who suffer a disability through deafness apply for an award from a local education authority to enter higher education, they will also apply for disabled students allowance. The form on which the notification is made will state the cause of their disability. Deafness will be defined as one of the disabilities that qualifies them for the allowance. That will be a passport for the student to income support and housing benefit. That method is simpler and clearer. It avoids the requirement for a medical examination and it will be in the interests of deaf students.

Mr. Frank Field: So good for deaf students. Will the Minister advocate extending the concession to mobility and attendance allowance?

Mr. Scott: I have considered the matters in the light of the introduction of disablement allowance in 1992. We could not do away entirely with medical assessments for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the tremendous increase in take-up of those two benefits in recent years. I am anxious that we should make the common assessment in the adjudication process for the two components of disability allowance as simple and straightforward as possible, with only one assessment for both components if someone is entitled to both. That method will be easily understood and, in an overused phrase, as user-friendly as possible. An element of medical assessment will remain an essential part of protecting the public purse while responding to the needs of those who need help because of their disability.
I was asked earlier why, if we are making a concession for deaf people, we cannot do so for the dyslexic. Whenever one makes a concession, a line must be drawn somewhere. There will always be some who will urge us to go further. I have family experience of dyslexia. My son suffers from the condition. It is more difficult to define dyslexia than to define deafness, as we have done in making this concession. On balance, the concession that I have announced establishes a proper balance between the various needs. I am glad to have been able to announce that concession.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for welcoming the concession. We believe that the improvements in the disabled students allowance announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledge the extra educational costs incurred by deaf students. But we were convinced of the case for extra help through the income support and housing benefit system. I recognise the point that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) made. They urged that we should monitor the effect of the changes. Of course, the Department of Education and Science will carefully monitor the overall effect of the new system of student support. I shall talk to my colleagues at the DES about making sure that the needs of disabled students are not overlooked.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about Scotland. If we had implemented the initial proposal, we could not have properly recognised and met the needs of disabled students in Scotland. In our consultations with local authorities we shall include local authorities in Scotland. I am advised that there is no problem in extending the concession to Scotland if we


accept the proposal that I suggested to the House. In a sense the whole purpose of the new proposal is to meet the needs of Scotland, as well as the rest of the country.
I do not propose to enter into the dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South about hearing aids. Increasingly, deaf people are looking for choice and flexibility in the provision of hearing aids, so private provision might play an important role in future. I ask the House to overturn the three amendments.

Mr. Alfred Morris: With the leave of the House, I shall give the Opposition's response. We are not unappreciative of the Minister's endeavours to help, but, as I said earlier, he appears to have lost at least part of a battle with the Treasury. In supporting the Lords amendments, we were seeking not only a promissory note for all the disabled students to which the amendments refer, but a definite decision by the House tonight. As to definition, we already have a wholly objective definition. It is the one approved by the British Society of Audiology. The Minister spoke about the shortage of medical manpower, which I fully appreciate. I know that there are difficulties; indeed, I experienced them myself as a Minister. But I must stress that a definition is already available. Is the definition of deafness approved by the British Society of Audiology not good enough for the Government?
We intended to demonstrate our support for the amendments in the Lobby. But there is little enough time left to debate other important amendments even now. We shall not divide the House, therefore, but I hope that the Minister will make a further statement to the House soon on progress concerning the matters that we have discussed tonight. If he can agree to do so, I am sure that it will be a welcome undertaking to all the organisations of and for disabled people.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 disagreed to.

Clause 3

REDUCED EARNINGS ALLOWANCE AND RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 26, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
(8) The following provisions shall cease to have effect—

(a) in section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988, the subsection (8) originally enacted (restriction on entitlement to reduced earnings allowance); and
(b) in Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, paragraph 8(7) (which substitutes for that subsection a subsection (8) and a subsection (8A))."

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment, necessary because subsections (8) and (8A) of section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988, amended in schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, had not been commenced.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION 165A OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(2) In Schedule 20 to the principal Act (glossary of expressions), the entry relating to "entitled" and cognate expressions—

(a) shall be taken at all times on or after 2nd September 1985 but before the passing of this Act to have had effect with the substitution, in the second column, of the words, "section 165A and 165B" for the words "section 165A"; and
(b) shall have effect as from the passing of this Act with the substitution for those words of the words "section 165A to 165D"."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 70 to 84.

Mrs. Shephard: The amendments correct minor drafting difficulties in relation to clause 5 and commencement. Their aim is to amend various provisions of the Social Security Acts 1975 and 1986 to re-establish the accepted policy that, generally speaking, a person shall not be entitled to benefit for any period unless a claim has been made within the prescribed time limits.

Mr. Bob Clay: The Under-Secretary of State may say that these are minor, technical amendments but, certainly in one case, they reflect an outrageous constitutional precedent. They are all major pieces of retrospective legislation. We are dealing with a swathe of retrospective legislation.
The amendments to clause 5 have a long history, going back to the McCarthy judgment in the House of Lords in November 1984. It established that a person could be entitled to a benefit, even if he or she had not claimed it. That meant that a claim could be made outside normal time limits. In 1985 the Government tried to prevent that by adding section 165A to the Social Security Act 1985, but last year a social security commissioner decided in the Cartwright case that section 165A did not operated retrospectively. In other words, it was still possible to make a late claim, at least for the period before September 1985, when section 165A came into force. Tonight, the Government are retrospectively preventing that from happening from now on.
The amendments to paragraph 7 of schedule 6 deal with important retrospective principles. Paragraph 7 deals with what arises when a social security commissioner, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords has decided that the Department of Social Security has got the law wrong. It is intended to ensure that other claimants in similar circumstances cannot claim arrears of benefit for the period before the decision of the commissioner or court.
Paragraph 7 was introduced on Report in the House in April 1990. It was not debated because of the guillotine. That takes us back to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others when we debated the timetable motion tonight. It is outrageous that we have so little time to debate a


provision, which has been made even worse in the Lords, which we could not debate properly on Report because of the guillotine. The provision was amended in the Lords and the amendment almost completely rewrites the paragraph, which runs to two and a half pages of the Bill. We are debating paragraph 7 as a whole, not merely the points of detail.
Under paragraph 7, apart from the individual whose case is decided by the commissioner or the court, no one can claim the benefits to which they were legally entitled for the period before that decision. This is a major constitutional alteration, which denies thousands of claimants back payments of benefit. It is a complete reversal of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. Parliament makes laws and, if there are doubts, the courts, including social security commissioners, interpret laws. They decide not merely what the law means in future, but what it has meant since Parliament enacted it. Nobody, not even the Secretary of State, is entitled to substitute his or her interpretation for that of the courts. If the Secretary of State does not like what the courts decide, he can ask Parliament to change the law. Even then, the change would not normally be retrospective.
Paragraph 7 places every adjudication officer in a DSS office or unemployment benefit office above the highest court in the land. In effect, it says that the law means whatever the adjudicating authority thought it meant, even if the commissioner or the courts subsequently decide that it meant something entirely different.
Paragraph 7 raises practical implications. One category of claimants affected is the large number of disabled people who suffer from vibration white finger. I have considerable interest in the matter as thousands of my constituents have outstanding claims mainly as a result of working in shipyards, mines and heavy engineering. An important decision was made by the commissioners in respect of my constituent Mr. Kenneth Potts.
Thousands of people await review of claims for reduced earnings allowance. Provided that the review is carried out before this Bill receives Royal Assent, they will be entitled to 12 months' arrears from the date on which they applied for a review, but those whose cases are still in the pipeline will lose that entitlement. It is an utterly absurd, arbitrary guillotine. Apart from the fundamental objections to paragraph 7, it is plainly utterly unjust that its effect on individuals should depend entirely on the length of the administrative delay on applications for review.
In the same town, the backlog of reviews could be dealt with at a different pace in two different DSS offices. Those who claimed a review in one office considerably before someone who claimed a review at the other office could lose out simply because the administrative delay at one office is greater than at the other. To have these administrative delays on reviews is bad enough, but for the Government to compound that by bringing down an arbitrary guillotine on the procedure is outrageous.
The position of the Minister of State is somewhat peculiar and I hope that he will listen carefully. I pay tribute to him for listening to arguments about the particular problems that arise from vibration white finger and for laying an order last year. As a result of representations, he agreed to lift the order for a period which we welcomed. As a result, thousands more late claims were made by people who realised that they could claim as a result of the Potts decision. Thousands are now

outstanding. The Minister has, in effect, cruelly lifted an order so that thousands more claims can be made, but now that those claims are registered and awaiting review, he has amended the Bill in the Lords so that, if the reviews are successful, they cannot be backdated.
When the amendments were debated in the Lords, Lord Henley defended them on the grounds that they gave effect to what the law was always intended to be. Who is to say what the law was intended to be? In the Crompton case, the commissioner, Mr. R. A. Saunders, commented:
One cause of the problem is that the expression "non-dependant" in the provisions in question has been given what is on any view a completely artificial meaning. It seems to have nothing to do with dependency in the ordinary sense of the word.
The commissioner went on to say that he could see nothing in the wording of the regulation to suggest that it had the meaning attached to it by the DSS adjudication officer. Yet in Lord Henley's view, Parliament is now to be assumed to have intended it to have that meaning, although the commissioner has effectively said that that is nonsense.
The people who will be affected by the decision are those who were entitled to a severe disability premium in the light of the Crompton case. That decision was dated 17 May. A claimant who succeeds in getting his claim reviewed before Royal Assent will be entitled to arrears of premium, not for 12 months but at least for the period up to 9 October 1989 when the regulations were amended in anticipation of the commissioners' decision. If the claim is not reviewed before Royal Assent, the claimant will get nothing.
If from now on the law is to be not what Parliament enacts, but what the Government intend or the adjudication officer thinks was intended, what is the point of our coming here and debating these matters? The practical outcome of the amendment to paragraph 7 will be that if a number of claimants appeal on the same grounds, and the commissioner treats one of them as a test case and finds in favour of the claimant, only that one claimant will receive arrears of benefit. What an absurdity. I shall spell out the practicalities to Ministers and ask for a specific assurance.
Logically, if the Government persist in this nonsense, claimants will insist that massive joint cases are taken to the commissioners. Instead of the simplicity of one test case, each claimant will say, "I want my case decided by the commissioners." Will the Government say tonight, first, whether they accept that that is likely to be the position and, secondly, what administrative arrangements they will make so that, if necessary, hundreds or even thousands of claimants can simultaneously appeal to the commissioners for decisions when they believe that they have a common ground for claiming? That is the administrative nightmare into which the Government will have got themselves if they continue with this nonsense.
This group of amendments also involves retrospective legislation on industrial deafness. Last year, the arbitrary regulation put a five-year limit on claims for industrial deafness, which was found to be ultra vires. Tonight, the Government are retrospectively saying that, regardless of the commissioners' decision, from now on the law will retrospectively cut off those claims that people could make until tonight.
This is a swathe of retrospective legislation aimed at people with little power to fight back. It totally undermines


the independence of the social security adjudication system. The precious little confidence that many people have in the system will be undermined even further. Many thousands of people in many districts, particularly those suffering from industrial vibration white finger, who thought that after a long struggle they were to obtain some rights, a fair review and a small entitlement as their just deserts, for whom orders had been laid, withdrawn and laid again, will now discover that they will not receive back payment. That is outrageous, and even at this stage the Government should think again.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: As always, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on the force of his arguments and his intimate knowledge of the subject drawn from his constituents, particularly those suffering from vibration white finger.
In relation to amendments Nos. 5 and 6, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North is right when he quotes McCaffrey and Cartwright. A legal understanding on entitlement has existed through Administrations of both complexions at least back to the start of the national insurance scheme in 1948. He was right when he said that until a judgment of the House of Lords in November 1984, it had been our understanding that the law achieved such an effect on entitlement. In the McCaffrey case, their Lordships held that entitlement to benefit could exist even where no claim had been made. Although the McCaffrey judgment referred specifically to non-contributory invalidity pension, the decision had wider implications across the social security sphere. Therefore, we decided that the effects of the McCaffrey case should be nullified, and section 165A was inserted into the Social Security Act 1975 to achieve that, with effect from 2 September 1985.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Cartwright case of June last year, when a social security commissioner held that the word "entitled", where relating to an event before 2 September 1985, meant "entitled" in the McCaffrey sense—without requiring that a claim must be made for benefit. I repeat that it has been the understanding of Governments of both complexions since 1948 that, in order to be entitled to benefit, a claimant should make a claim.
8.45 pm
The effect of the proposed change is to restore the law on entitlement to that which we had always thought it to be before the McCaffrey judgment, following the introduction of section 165A. Clearly, there must be a limit beyond which it is neither practicable nor consistent with the proper administration of public funds to have to investigate benefit entitlement. Until the McCaffrey judgment and the Cartwright decisions, the 12-month statutory time bar on claiming had always provided such a limit. All we aim to do now is to restore that position.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North overstated his concern about amendments Nos. 70 to 84. I ask the House to agree with those amendments. There have been statutory restrictions on the payment of arrears since 1948. The amendments correct drafting defects in paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to provide that arrears of benefit payable on the review of a claim or on a new claim following a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority are restricted back to the date of that reinterpretation. The

maximum amount of arrears payable for new claims is limited to the current absolute time limit for claiming the benefit at issue or, where there is not one, 12 months.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the present arrangements provide a 12-month limit on arrears, where adjudication officers review decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority. However, the hon. Gentleman must know that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised that provision as inequitable because, where, following a reinterpretation of the law, an affected case does not come to light immediately, the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears from every week's delay before a review decision is given.
It was in response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that we brought forward our amendments. We decided to introduce the arrangements provided by the amendments to give equity of treatment for all gainers from a reinterpretation of the law—by providing a common start date for payment of arrears—that the current backdating arrangements lack.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Crompton case. I am aware of the concern about the effects of paragraph 7 on such cases affected by that decision. Anyone whose benefit is affected by that decision, and whose claim is reviewed before the introduction of paragraph 7 on Royal Assent, will have his or her benefit arrears calculated under the existing rules. Anyone whose case is reviewed after Royal Assent will have his benefit arrears limited back to the date of the social security commissioner's decision on Crompton.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the amendments. Their purpose is to return the law to the position that Governments of both complexions believed it to be. We think that the proposals are fair, sensible and desirable. I commend them to the House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 205.

Division No. 286]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amos, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Churchill, Mr


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W, (Croydon S)


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Critchley, Julian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brazier, Julian
Curry, David






Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dykes, Hugh
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, George
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gill, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, Sir David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neale, Gerrard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Price, Sir David


Holt, Richard
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas





Shaw, David (Dover)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shelton, Sir William
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Greg Knight and


Thorne, Neil
Mr. David Lightbown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Don


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronald


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Tony
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carr, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clay, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Crowther, Stan
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Geraint


Darling, Alistair
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)






Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wilson, Brian


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Noes:


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. John McFall and


Parry, Robert
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Pendry, Tom

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7, before clause 6, insert the following new Clause—

Exemption for full-time students

". In section 20(12)(h) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided that no person shall be so treated solely on the ground that he is a full-time student.""

9 pm

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and the Government motions to disagree. The three amemdments involve privilege.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said that these amendments involve privilege. Can you explain that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is because they have financial implications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps more than any other hon. Member, knows as well as I do what we mean by privilege in a Lords amendment.

Mr. Rhodes James: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If they involve privilege, why have they been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the House to judge whether to allow their Lordships' amendments to prevail.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you have said is valid. However, when we had exactly the same proposals from the Lords on the Education (Student Loans) Bill, they were ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker and were not even allowed to come before the House. Now those proposals, which we thought were in order because they are in the Social Security Bill rather than the Education (Student Loans) Bill, are suddenly victims of privilege. What is the point of the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would not dream, retrospectively or in any other way, of commenting on the ruling by Mr. Speaker. I am sure that his ruling was right. The hon. Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) know that a battle was fought 300 years ago about the rights and privileges of the House.

Mr. Scott: After that short digression, I remind the House that I am asking it to disagree with the Lords in these amendments. I do not think that anybody will be surprised by that advice, because, if these amendments were not overturned, they would strike at the core of our policy on social security benefits for students, and they are intended to deal it a lethal blow. I understand that some hon. Members disagree with the underlying policy. Nevertheless, it has been clear Government policy to change the system.
In practice, the amendments would prevent the Government from withdrawing students' entitlement to housing benefit from the next academic year. That means that students would not only have access to grant, a top-up loan, access funds and any parental assistance, but continue to have access to housing benefit. The Government believe that it would be both undesirable and unnecessary for students to fall back on the benefit system under the new funding arrangements coming into force in September.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister recites to the House the sources of income for which students might be eligible, and then says that the Government wish to put a block on them. Surely the test is whether their income is above the level of eligibility for housing benefit. By trying to reject the Lords amendment, the Government are attempting to create a special category of people who, irrespective of their level of income, will not be eligible for housing benefit.

Mr. Scott: We are making it clear that, unless students are members of vulnerable groups, responsibility for their maintenance will be a matter for the education authorities


and the education system, not the social security system. I believe that, as a whole, the House is perfectly well aware that there has been a long-standing commitment to remove the majority of full-time students from that system.
It would not benefit the House for me to rehearse again all the arguments that led the Government to that decision; suffice it to say that the educational maintenance system has been designed for that purpose, and that from the next academic year the system of student support is being enhanced to provide students with an income for the full year, including the long vacation. Overall, it will provide an additional 25 per cent. in total student support. In that context, we propose to withdraw students' entitlement to housing benefit. It makes no sense to duplicate the financial support arrangements for students; to do so would not be a sensible use of resources, and it would not liberate local authorities from the disproportionate administrative burden of claims that so often result in either no benefit or only small amounts being paid.

Mr. Field: Surely the Minister accepts that, if students' income was over the housing benefit level, they would be ineligible in the first place. The Government are only introducing the regulations to penalise those who would be eligible for housing benefit if they were not students. Their income from all the sources from which the Minister has told the House that they may gain help does not take them above the eligibility level for housing benefit.

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was preparing that intervention rather than listening to my remarks. Quite often, because total income will be either above that level—in which case they will receive nothing—or just below it—in which case they may receive a tiny amount—we believe that it is better to separate the whole thing, and relieve local authorities of the administrative burden.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Can the Minister tell the House how many local authorities have complained about the administrative burden of providing benefit in those circumstances?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of the administration of housing benefit, he will know that it is complicated, and that not all local authorities perform to a high standard in that regard. As he knows, they are under a duty to pay it within 14 days of a claim being made. That is not always met by local authorities, especially where students are involved, and it can take a considerable time before benefit is paid. The measure would contribute in no small part to the administrative burden on local authorities.
Our statistics show that fewer than one fifth of students claim housing benefit during term time. Other survey data reveal that only a small proportion of those claim it during the summer vacation, and that the average benefit received across all benefits is £315 a year among students who do claim. That amount is well below the amount of student loan available.

Dr. Hampson: If the amount is so small, why does the Minister not accept the proposal from the vice-chancellors and from some hon. Members that the withdrawal should be phased out? I gather that the loss is about £560; the loan is £420. There will be hardship. How much of the take-up that he has announced is by postgraduates who have family and debt commitments? We should encourage them, not discourage them.

Mr. Scott: I shall return to that point about the position of graduates when I wind up. I should like first to make the basic case. I make no apology for this. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter, and he has argued about it in a number of forums since the Government announced their plans. There is no question of the Government resiling from their commitment to separate students, unless they are in vulnerable groups, from the social security system and to make them dependent on the educational maintenance system.
The average amount of benefit received is £315 a year, among those students who claim. This amount is well below the amount of student loan available. The access funds have been set up, and increased, to assist students with additional needs. Furthermore, those students who have special financial needs, because of disability or lone parenthood for example, will continue to be eligible for housing benefit and income support.
I accept that the access funds will play a crucial role under the new arrangements, and our policy is predicated on provisions being introduced in the education system to meet the challenge. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has undertaken to monitor the operation of the access funds. I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government's assurances on this issue and support our policy, which—

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I am in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be courteous enough to allow me to complete it.
I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government's assurances on this issue and support our policy, which has been accepted by a majority on the Social Security Advisory Committee, that housing benefit should no longer be available to students.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister accept the unanimous judgment of the Social Security Advisory Committee that some students could be left destitute as a result of this scheme? Why does he not cover that possibility, as the committee unanimously recommended, by providing for a safety net below which no student should be allowed to fall? If he does not accept that, is he not admitting the possibility that some poor students will be left destitute?

Mr. Scott: The committee said that, during the long vacation, some students might be particularly hard hit, and that they should have recourse to a safety net. There is already a safety net—the power for local education authorities to pay hardship payments. That is a better way, and more educationally attuned to the needs of the student rather than to the generality of the population, than turning to the social security system, which is designed for an entirely different purpose.
Lords amendment No. 9 would impose a provision in the housing benefit scheme that already exists in practice. It would require local or regional rent levels to be taken into account in the calculation of maximum housing benefit. The House will be aware that housing benefit is calculated to take account of three key factors. The first is that the level of a claimant's needs should be taken into account in the assessment—the applicable amount—the


second is the amount of the claimant's resources, and the third is the amount of rent that the claimant has to pay, less any ineligible costs.
Because the calculation is based on the individual claimant's rent liability, by definition it must reflect variations in local and regional housing costs. This arrangement does not differ for students now, and will not differ for those students who retain entitlement to housing benefit from September. In other words, the amendment is unnecessary, as it is already reflected in the system. I cannot advise the House to accept it.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Opposition strongly repudiate the Government's attempt, at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, to remove students from housing benefit entitlement. The Minister's talk of administrative difficulties for local authorities and the other excuses that he gave are unacceptable. It is particularly obnoxious that this is being done when the proposal was not contained in the original Bill, has not been debated and is being inserted even before the Government's student loans scheme is in place. It has been roundly condemned by senior independent academic opinion, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It was the subject of not one, but three, Government defeats in the Lords.
The Government's proposals are ill-founded both in concept and in practical application. In concept, the justification given regularly by the Minister for disentitling students from social security benefits is that they have voluntarily withdrawn from the labour market. The vice-chancellors' committee, in its letter of 16 March to the Social Security Advisory Committee, called that a fundamental misconception. It said:
This ignores the fact that a large number of students are not only available for work for approximately four months a year, but rely on the income which that work provides when they are studying during the rest of the year. In future, therefore, a large number of students will continue to be active in seeking work during the summer vacation, but if they fail to gain employment they will be unable to claim benefits and will, therefore, face further financial hardship.
I do not think that a condemnation of the basic rationale could be clearer than that.
The proposal to withdraw housing benefit is also flawed in its practical application. The Minister stated again tonight, as he did in a recent parliamentary answer, that an average of £315 a year would have been paid in benefits to those students making a claim in this year, while a student loan would be £420 on average, and that the average student would be better off. There is no more credibility in his figures on student costs than there is in the Government's figures on unemployment or on levels of poverty.
Ministers appear to be admitting that. On 26 March, I asked the Secretary of State for Social Security
what is (a) the total value and average weekly payment of housing benefit currently being claimed by claimants aged 18 to 24 years, (b) the total value of housing benefit paid to students in the academic year 1988–89 in each region of the country"?
The Under-Secretary of State replied:
Information is not available in the detail requested … Similar information for claimants receiving both income

support and housing benefit is not held. Housing benefit spending on claimants who are aged 18 to 24 is not identifiable within total expenditure.
Information on housing benefit paid to students is not available in the form requested".—[Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 81.]
She could not have more clearly shown her lack of knowledge of the issue.
The National Union of Students, which has more reason to know the facts than anyone—[ Laughter.] I know why the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is laughing, but he is a little premature. In its submission the Social Security Advisory Committee, the NUS cited a survey that suggested that, at present, the sum total of financial resources available to a student outside London is £3,260, while under the new system of loans it will be about £2,685—about £580 less.
There are those, such as the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding, who think that the conclusion of the NUS is one of vested interest by those who have a good reason to up the figures. However, that conclusion is almost identical to the conclusion of the vice-chancellors' committee. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that it said that, in the south-east in 1988–89,
housing benefit could be claimed on rents in excess of £14 per week. The average rent for privately-rented accommodation in this area, cited by a number of universities, has risen to £37.50 a week"—
the point has already been made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)—
so that a student stands to lose £560 in housing benefit during the academic year.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the most inappropriate comparison, because average rents take account of the whole range of housing available? Students are not expected, at such a stage in their careers, to be living in the higher range of accommodation available, so the average figure for rent is irrelevant when considering the basis of student costs.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman falls into exactly the same trap as the Government, in quoting average figures. The Government quote average figures of £420 and £315, but we know that there are substantial variations and that averages are inappropriate. However, because the Government used average figures, I quoted the arguments made on the same basis by the vice-chancellors.
It is not only the Opposition who think that the Government are all over the shop. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West will surely not mind if I quote his apposite article in The Times Higher Education Supplement:
Recent Parliamentary Questions show that the Government does not seem to know exactly how much goes to students in various forms of welfare benefit. Clearly some benefits will be offset by a student loan, but some will not because of the difference in regional and urban housing costs.
That is exactly true. It can be said with certainty that housing benefit is something dear to the heart of the Government—a targeted benefit. It takes into account differences in income and in regional housing costs, and it is the only benefit that does so.
Because the variations in regional housing costs are now so large, if that benefit is replaced by a loans scheme, it is certain that many students would find themselves below—in some cases substantially below—the income support level or official poverty line. That runs wholly


contrary to the Government's declared intention not to deter students from low-income backgrounds from pursuing courses of higher and further education.
The White Paper refers to access funds, which the Minister also mentioned,
to provide discretionary support, in individual cases of financial need, for students losing entitlement to benefits.
However, the £5 million to be made available for that purpose to those within the scope of the student loans scheme is derisory. The vice-chancellors estimate that it will provide less than £7 per university student per year. Frankly, that is useless.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Figures just released in Scotland on the amount to be made available under the access scheme show that, last year, Edinburgh university students received more in housing benefit than students attending 17 institutions controlled by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That puts the figures into perspective.

Mr. Meacher: That is an effective statistic, and I hope that the Minister will reply to that point when he winds up. My hon. Friend makes the case very forcibly.
There is one further aspect of disentitlement to housing benefit that is particularly scandalous. It relates to postgraduate students, who are the subject of amendment No. 8, and number 50,000. Not only will they be ineligible for student loans, but disqualified from claiming housing benefit. By any standard that is totally unjust. It is also an absurdly short-sighted economy measure, as it will deter many from pursuing postgraduate studies. Because we feel strongly about that aspect, we will, if we have time, put amendment No. 8 to a Division.
It is difficult to exaggerate the impact of the amendments on further and higher education. A study of the student rented sector in Manchester that was published last month by Rowntree found that housing costs after housing benefit represented 28 per cent. of students' notional income. In the current year, after including the full loan of £420 a year, it is estimated that that figure will rise to 36 per cent. to 40 per cent., depending on the rate of rent increases. Taken together with the 23 per cent. real decline in the value of student awards since 1979, that can only narrow the basis of recruitment for higher education in the next generation.
In their White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" the Government say:
The Government is committed to increasing the opportunity for people from all backgrounds to participate in higher education.
Because we passionately believe in that objective and because the motion shows that the Government do not, we intend to divide the House.

Mr. Rhodes James: If these Lords amendments were taken in isolation from the other Government proposals relating to student finance, the Government would have a good case. I am particularly strengthened by my right hon. Friend's response to the previous Lords amendments, which we greatly appreciated. I wish that it were possible to remove students entirely from the need to depend on social security benefits of any kind. The matter cannot, however, be viewed in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of the effects of the Government's full proposals and the regulations that we shall debate later.
I am grateful to Jesus college, Cambridge, for a detailed, factual and objective analysis of student

expenditure and income in that college. It is particularly constructive, because it demonstrates how difficult life has become, even for Cambridge undergraduates who enjoy advantages that students elsewhere do not. The figure will be of interest to hon. Members and, perhaps, to the Minister.
If an undergraduate is living in Jesus college, the cost of accommodation varies from £900 to £500 a year, depending on the amenities. However, a large and an increasing number of undergraduates and graduates have to live outside college. They face a market rate for a room of, on average, £40 a week. Normally, it also has to be paid in the short vacations. This, on the basis of a 38-week year, amounts to £1,520, to which must be added £86.70 for the community charge. Unfortunately, we have a Labour council in Cambridge. That has to be found out of a total income in 1990–91 of £2,575: a grant of £2,155 and a loan of £420, if the regulations are approved. Thus, for a Cambridge student living out of college, allowing for a notional £334 for essential expenditure, there is £421 left, or £11.08 a week for 38 weeks, after accommodation costs. For the favoured undergraduate living in college, the position is better; he is left with £22.62 a week for 38 weeks.
The figures demonstrate the huge proportion of grant and loan that has to be spent on accommodation and why the removal of housing benefit will have such a disproportionate impact on student finances. I am talking about students who have a full grant. Many do not. They depend on parental contributions that some parents will not or cannot provide.
There is another point of deeper significance that relates not just to money. One of the great and unique strengths of the British university system as it has evolved is that it is not home-based. I know of some university systems that are home based. Their weakness, as real universities, lies in that fact; it applies to many of the state universities in the United States.
I had the privilege of going to university on a scholarship, before grants were available. One of the factors that made it such a unique experience for me, apart from leaving home, which was a happy one, was that I met people from entirely different backgrounds and from entirely different parts of the country and the world. That was a major part of my education. It was then that I appeciated the value of, for example, the Rhodes scholarships and of the arrangements for overseas students. That mixture of young adults from very different backgrounds, who are given the opportunity of coming together in a different place rather than in their home base, gives the British universities and polytechnics their special quality.
Ministers have not sufficiently realised that the abolition of eligibility for housing benefit, combined with the regulations that will be debated later this evening, will make British universities more home based. That will destroy not only the lives and the incomes of students and their parents, but something much more profound. I hope that Ministers will bear in mind those deplorable consequences, because we are talking not simply about housing benefit and the problems that affect this year's or next year's students, but about the whole future of higher education.

Mr. Frank Field: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) because, as a modern historian, he, more than most in the House, can locate that certain point in a Government's life—the point at which the Administration begin to unwind. The events surrounding that point are often not dramatic, but they are telling. Tonight there are two examples of that in one measure.
First, if the Government press their will on the House and win—they have a large majority and may well win—we shall have an example of the Government spitting in the wind. They will win the vote but lose the argument, and the argument here is whether the Administration understand how the real world works. In the 11 years that I have been in the House, that is a badge that the Government have proudly worn, labelling Opposition Members as people who have no real idea of what goes on in the world outside. It is proper to say that we do not want students to have to rely on social security benefits to survive. Few hon. Members will go to the stake or anywhere else on that point. But we are dealing with the real world and our constituents who are students have to deal with the real world, and the plain and unalterable fact is that social security benefits are crucial for students' survival.
In the light of the information that the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) have given, and if we are to prevent destitution and homelessness, it is important that we should not agree with the Government tonight but should stand by the amendment that the Lords have made. That is the first telling point—the Government are willingly spitting in the wind despite all the evidence presented to them.
Secondly, if the Government win the vote tonight, they will damage themselves in another equally fundamental way. They have based much of their social policy on what they like to call targeting but which hon. Members on both sides of the House call means-testing. There could not be a more perfect example of the market system at work. If one is above the line, one does not get help, but if one is below the line, help is targeted towards one. But now the Government are saying to the House, "Never mind how that market system works. Never mind if students can prove that their income is below the level of eligibility for housing benefit. We will step in. We will interfere and take actions that prevent that part of the market system from working." We are asked to approve that argument, and that is what will happen if the Government win the day.
We are debating an issue that concerns students which, sadly, does not command the respect in the country that it should. But we are also debating something that is perhaps much more important: that point in the Government's long life at which the whole of their policy begins to unwind. We are seeing that in two important respects. In the first place, they are denying what we all know to be true—that students need that help—and, secondly, they are setting aside 11 years of targeting policy because they know in their heart that it does not work.

Sir George Young: I have the deepest respect for both the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose independent views on social issues are so often echoed on the Conservative Benches, and for my

hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), whose views on social issues broadly mirror my own. However, on this issue I cannot agree with them and I hope that the House will agree with the Government and reject the amendments.
The debate so far has revolved around two key issues: the proposed new structure for student support and the level of provision. The new structure for supporting students embodies the principle that students should no longer look to the Department of Social Security for help. Instead, they should look to the Department of Education and Science, which, after all, already funds the bulk of their living costs. I find no difficulty with that principle. I see some merit in having one Department instead of two concerned with the financial viability of students. I also see an advantage in educational institutions managing the access funds instead of students looking to housing benefit. I honestly believe that the new structure has much to commend it. It is tidier.
Part of the DES grant already goes on housing. Students who do not receive housing benefit already spend part of their grant on housing. I see nothing wrong in extending the principle by saying that instead of looking for just part of their housing costs from the DES, they should look for the whole of their costs from the DES. I see nothing offensive about the principle that students in future should no longer look to two Government Departments, but should look to one for the support to which they are entitled from the Government as they pass through university or higher education. I see nothing to go to the stake for on that.
The second issue has been the level of support. The proposed access funds have already been increased in response to representations. I am sure that they have been designed to be adequate for the purpose for which they are intended. If it turns out that they are inadequate, Conservative Members who follow such issues will be the first to press for more funds. However, housing benefit has not been immune from cuts. There have been several changes to housing benefit which have reduced its appeal. When there have been reductions in housing benefit, it is not particularly logical to say that we should stick with the housing benefit scheme because that is what is of most benefit to students. There are positive advantages in encouraging students to look to the access funds that are designed for students, as they are likely to be far more targeted to their needs.
Overall, the new regime will cost much more. It will involve £178 million in the loan scheme and £25 million in the access fund, making about £200 million in all. However, there will be only a £68 million saving in benefits.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend has campaigned more eloquently and more persistently than most against the community charge. Does he realise that to bring this new change in at precisely the same moment that students are being caned by the community charge will create real prolblems?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend refers in flattering terms to the doubts that I had about the community charge. However, I see no particular logic in trying to relate what has happened in respect of the community charge to this debate. The structure for student support


that we are now proposing is perfectly logical. The resources being devoted to that new structure are more generous than under the present structure.

Dr. Hampson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young: No, I must conclude and if I do so, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) will have an opportunity to address the House.
Neither on the structure of the proposal nor on the level of provision do I believe that there need be doubts on the Conservative Benches about the matter and I propose to support the Government.

Mr. Kirkwood: I must take issue with one half of the proposition of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). His case for the system of payment from one source and one Government Department is perfectly reasonable. I have no quarrel with the Government's long-stated social security view that students should not have to rely on social security payments. No hon. Member would dissent from that view. However, page 6 of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report states that, if the value of the grant is allowed to depreciate and wither over a period, it will not be possible for students to exist under the educational system of support. The hon. Gentleman seemed to accept that point.
Hon. Members who examine the way in which the level of grant in real terms has been eroded, and who consider their own constituency cases, must conclude that there are students below the income levels that we use as definitions, unofficial or otherwise, of the poverty line. The hon. Member for Action cannot have both parts of his proposition. Of course the structure should be unified. Of course we should all like the DES to provide the money, but if the DES is not to provide the money, there must be a safety net somewhere. The safety net has been the social security system.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made the key point in the debate. If the Government's scheme is approved, we shall discriminate against students, who will be the only group in society who will knowingly be asked to subsist on levels of income that, for other social security purposes, are judged to be inadequate. I do not think that that is acceptable.

Mr. Mike Watson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a survey that was carried out by welfare officers in Edinburgh, which is near his constituency? It was found that the average housing benefit claim during the academic year was £290 and, during the summer vacation, £209, giving a total of about £500, which was well in excess of the student loan available. Is not that bound to lead to a situation in which students are much worse off and are dissuaded from taking up full-time higher education?

Mr. Kirkwood: Absolutely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware, of that survey. No doubt, if he had had time, the hon. Gentleman would have made the point that it will have a disproportionate effect on low-income families and their access to higher education. That point has not been mentioned, and I do not think that the Government have properly addressed it.
I should like the Minister to address some of the questions that the Social Security Advisory Committee has

raised, particularly about the long vacation and postgraduate students. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly mentioned that point and said that about 50,000 postgraduate students are not eligible for loans but will be disqualified for housing benefit. Amendment No. 8 is a particularly objectionable proposition. The Government are putting postgraduate students into an indefensible position.
The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) deserves further attention. As far as I am aware, there have been no great complaints by local authorities about the administrations of the housing benefit system as it affects students. Of course there are difficulties in the complexity of the scheme that the Government ask local authorities to administer, but I have heard no complaints in relation to students.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is only bawbees in any case, that they are not deriving a tremendous amount of benefit, and, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West rightly pointed out, that the Government do not have cast-iron statistics or figures relating to the amounts of money that we are talking about; if they have, we have not seen them and they did not come to light in the important debates in the other place. The Government are taking a great leap into the dark and playing ducks and drakes with the future of a vulnerable and valuable group of people in our society. I do not think that the amount of money will be enough. Some students will struggle.
The access funds are totally inadequate. The hon. Member for Acton was quite wrong to talk about £5 million for the further education sector, £14 million for those who are undertaking first degree courses, and £6 million for postgraduates. It is totally inadequate, according to the evidence from Cambridge and Edinburgh and all other available survey evidence. The Government have not paid enough attention to that matter. The administration of the scheme will prove an even bigger bureaucratic nightmare than the administration of housing benefit by local authorities.
For all those reasons, I believe that the Government's proposals will be fraught with difficulties and will cause increasing hardship. The House will be forced to return to this issue at an early stage. The Government will have to come back, cap in hand, and Opposition Members will take great pleasure in saying, "We told you so."

Dr. Hampson: If I may, I shall address my remarks directly and immediately to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I must advise him that there is a valid parallel with the community charge. When Conservative Members told the Government that there would be immediate hardship because the scale of the increase in the business rate would be too acute, the Government responded and phased in the implementation. Why, therefore, are they not prepared to phase out housing benefit when there is hardship, especially for postgraduates?
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Acton to consider the community charge bill for a postgraduate student couple, who might have a house and a mortgage, hire purchase payments on a car and television, and perhaps even a family. Postgraduate students make a sacrifice—they are not eligible for loans—but the Government are


withdrawing housing benefit. Furthermore, the access fund is so small that in London, even if he was eligible for access funds, a postgraduate student would have to find an extra £500 because of the withdrawal of housing benefit.
Postgraduate students are at a premium. In the next 10 years there will be a shrinking pool of talent, especially in science and engineering. However, the amount of money that is currently available to help postgraduate social science students is also shrinking. The Economic and Social Research Council currently has only 220 graduate scholarships at its disposal, whereas 10 years ago it had 2,000. We are squeezing the amount of help to postgraduates. The access funds are inadequate and scholarships and loans are not available.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is responsible for higher education, is on the Treasury Bench, because I believe that it is no coincidence that only a week ago, with great panache, the Department of Education and Science announced increases in postgraduate award rates. The fact that that happened just a week before this debate is meant to say, "Yes, we believe that there is a problem and we—the DES—recognise that postgraduates will suffer because of what another Department is insisting on doing."
I do not object to the principle of what is being done. The principle is to try to ensure that students are not dependent on welfare benefits. That must be right. I am sure that no Conservative Member would question that, but some of us believe that, by withdrawing housing benefit in such a rigid and determined way, the Government are causing hardship. Because the DES knows that, it has tried to claim that it will increase postgraduate awards by £400 a year. However, that increase of £400 will not come in until next April. Awards increases have always been granted in October. If, this October, postgraduate students automatically received the increase that they have received every year, more or less in line with inflation, they would be getting £370. However, they will not automatically receive £370 this October; they will receive £400 next April.
Without any question, postgraduates will suffer at every level. Financially, they will not be as well off as they have been. Housing benefit was a targeted benefit that helped especially those postgraduates in real hardship because of their family or other circumstances. No Minister has shown tonight that the Government even know how much money is currently given to postgraduate students through that benefit. I suggest that it is a relatively small amount. It is a shame that the Government, of whom we are all a part, are not prepared in this instance as they have been in so many instances—I refer particularly to business men and the community charge—to show sensitivity, to recognise hardship and at least to try not to create further disincentives to postgraduate education, which will affect the future development of the country.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House I accept the principle that students should be paid for out of the education

budget. There is widespread agreement on that. I am not particularly worried by amendment No. 7, but we should think hard about amendment No. 8.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not speak on amendment No. 8 in his opening remarks. The point behind it is not entirely new. It has been raised on other amendments. What my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said carries a strong ring of conviction. When my right hon. Friend the Minister replies, he must give accurate figures on how far he believes that the access grants will alleviate the problems of post graduates. He must also fill out the position on their grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West made those points eloquently.
I, like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, believe deeply that it is crucial to this country that we produce research scholars of the highest possible standard. Anything that prevents that must be contrary to the national interest. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will either come up with good arguments or, better still, think again.

Mr. Cormack: I can do little more than echo what has been said by my right hon. Friend for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), and most of all by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge showed what Cambridge will lose. He is a splendid Member of Parliament, who knows the universities well. We heard what he said in his short speech. I for one am extremely sorry that he has announced that he will not seek re-election at the next general election.
It is a great pity that the Government are so obdurate on this matter. It is sad that the people who will be hit are the very people on whom the Government have relied for their support. The measure will hit at the middle of middle England.

Mr. Kirkwood: And Scotland.

Mr. Cormack: As the hon. Gentleman says, it will hit Scotland too. If only because they want to maintain their bedrock support, the Government must think again. After all, the creation of an access fund shows that the Government recognise that there is a need. The access funds are woefully inadequate to meet that need, yet we are cutting out a whole category of people and treating them uniquely in the process.
The people who will be hit include constituents of mine who have been hit—I make no apology for returning to the subject—by the community charge. Suddenly they have found that their student sons and daughters face the prospect of entering their earning life substantially in debt. Because of their increased burden, they cannot give their student son or daughter as much as they would like. Now their children are not eligible for housing benefit. Their sons and daughters will also have the community charge to find—albeit only 20 per cent.
What do such people do? In some cases they seek to dissuade their sons and daughters from going to university or following any higher education course. I do not wish to speak disparagingly of an institution, but in other cases parents encourage their children to go to the local polytechnic rather than to go away to university. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member


for Cambridge. Such a trend could distort the social balance of the country and the pattern of where people seek higher education. That would be a great pity.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I am especially worried about postgraduate students. Such students have often taken on family commitments. We are supposed to be the party that believes in the family. I do not suggest that other parties do not believe in the family, but the Prime Minister has rightly made great play of the family in recent months. We are the party that believes in the family and in encouraging the integrity of the family. Yet the Government make it difficult for families which include one or perhaps two postgraduate students to benefit not only themselves but the whole community by following a postgraduate course.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers on the Treasury Bench to think again. The sums involved are small. We are dealing with flexibility as opposed to inflexibility. There is virtual unanimity about the desirability of the Government's general aim. We do not want students to depend on social security benefits. None of us, or hardly any of us, wherever we sit in the House, wants that. Why cannot we for once listen carefully to what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said? We should phase in the scheme, bring it in gently, adjust, respond and consider. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) can groan, but she has a university in her constituency—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A very good one.

Mr. Cormack: —and a very good one. Many of the students who attend it will suffer as a result of the insensitivity of this proposal.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My students seek employment in the long vacation, and the vast majority of them find it. The right way to bring up children is to show them how to be independent and to seek employment if they can possibly find it.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend makes the case for me in her intervention. The vast majority of her students and mine find employment. I encourage that, just as she does. Nevertheless, there are exceptions who, through no fault of their own, cannot do so. That is particularly true of postgraduate students.
I have great respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, particularly my right hon. Friend who will reply. He has an extremely good record as a listening Minister and a man who is genuinely concerned. I ask them, for goodness' sake, to think again, and not to become so inflexible as to create the problems to which the vice-chancellors rightly pointed.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am surprised that the Labour party has decided to take up so much of the limited time for this debate to press this Lords amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about all the Tory Members?"] It is the Labour party, not my party. In mitigation, Labour Members have not turned up in large numbers. Perhaps the strength and extent of feeling is not as widespread as some Labour spokesmen have been inclined to make out. I am surprised, because our welfare state, to which I am enormously committed, has been built up—as you Mr. Speaker, will be the first to acknowledge—by the

contributions of statesmen from all three parties over many generations. All those statesmen, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, would have been horrified to imagine that the welfare state would be used as a form of student support. William Beveridge, Clement Attlee, Ernie Bevin and Herbert Morrison would be spinning in their graves if they heard some of the remarks of their successors.
I cannot think of a more inappropriate use of the social security system or of anything more demoralising for students than to start life on the benefit system and, indeed, to be encouraged to play that system for all it is worth even before they have taken any paid employment. I cannot think of anything more damaging to the credibility of social security among the general public as a whole. The Government are to be greatly congratulated on removing this impardonable anomaly, which has lasted for too long.
The Government could not simply withdraw the benefits of the social security system from students without ensuring an effective alternative means of support. They have done that. They have taken advantage of the introduction of top-up loans to increase by about 25 per cent. the resources available to students in the forthcoming academic year. That is a substantial increase by any standards.
It has been said on both sides of the House, by my hon. Friends as well as Opposition Members, that in some cases those new resources will be insufficient. The Government have gone even further and provided access funds that are infinitely preferable, as a way of supporting students who run into financial difficulties, to the social security system. That is not merely because of the psychological and moral reasons to which I have referred, but because the access funds provide an opportunity for that support to be decided by educationists and educational institutions, taking into account the student's individual circumstances. The funds will not be allocated according to some anonymous rule book by a large army of bureaucrats—which, unfortunately, is inevitably how any social security system works. It is an enormous improvement.
It has been hinted on both sides of the House that access funds will be insufficient. I wish that Opposition Members who take that line would have the intellectual honesty to say that they want the access funds to be increased. That is simple, and if that is what they had in mind, they should say it. I congratulate the Government on a humane and timely measure.

10 pm

Ms. Clare Short: This debate has shown the price of the guillotine. An enormously important change that will damage the lives and opportunities of many individuals, our education system and the country's future prosperity has to be squeezed into a small space of time. Nevertheless, there have been a number of significant contributions, much criticism from Government Members, and even more from Opposition Members. Some of my hon. Friends who wished to speak have held back so that Conservative Members would have a chance to do so.
Britain has become, and is increasingly becoming, a backward educational country compared with other countries in Europe and even the world. In South Korea, of all countries, there are more students, as a proportion of population, in higher education than in Britain. That is


a disgrace, and, it will damage the prospects of our country. It is a measure of our backwardness and continuing slide and decline, particularly during the 11 years of this Government.
There have been measures with bad effects on nurseries, standards in schools, quality of books for school children and buildings. Our staying-on rates are appalling, and tonight we are considering a measure that will make matters considerably worse. It will make significant numbers of students gravely poorer. It will affect those with the greatest difficulty in entering higher education—groups with the lowest participation rates, people from low-income backgrounds and working-class and black students. There is no doubt, and everyone who has considered the matter seriously predicts, that those under-represented groups which we need to get into higher education if we are to compete with other countries will be put off by the measure.
During the past 11 years, the Government have cut the value of student grants by 27 per cent. in real terms. As in so many other sectors, there have been repeated cuts in social security benefits to bring the system into disrepute—as the Government are currently doing with child benefit—and push students on to loans. The Government pretend that it is all right if they cut grants further and introduce a national loans system to cut the cost of young people going into full-time education.
There is no disagreement between the two sides of the House that the principle that the education system should provide for the maintenance of students is a good one, and they should not be funded from the social security system. It is disgraceful hypocrisy to use that sort of logic as an excuse for cutting students' income and driving many of our talented young people from low-income backgrounds out of higher education.
The whole principle of student loans is ridiculous. They should be provided according to need and then, when people did well and found better jobs as a result of having been students, they could pay them back through the tax and national insurance systems. That is the fairest, most universal and most sensible system.
These three amendments deal with the abolition of the right to housing benefit. I apologise to Conservative Members who have spoken about postgraduate students; we share their concern, but because of the guillotine we have the opportunity to vote on only one amendment, so we must vote on the one that restores the right to housing benefit for all students. It affects the largest number. We wholly agree with what has been said about the needs of postgraduates, but the guillotine has meant that we have had no chance—there was already no chance when I rose to speak—to vote on the amendment related to them.
The Minister of State was at his least eloquent this evening. I have paid him this compliment before, but when the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in something, he speaks badly. Tonight he spoke worse than I have ever heard him speak.

Mr. Scott: There has been a certain amount of gloom and doom from various quarters in the debate. I see no need for that when I look at higher education in this country. This year there were more applications to get into higher education than ever before, and it looks as though

that number will be exceeded in the coming academic year. If the whole country were petrified by the idea of student loans, that would not be so.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) queried the basis for the estimates that we make in this area. The average of £315 which I announced earlier as the total benefit is based on an independent survey carried out by Research Services Ltd. during the academic year 1988–89 and adjusted to 1991 levels. The average loan of £420 is greater than that, and those who cannot receive more will have access to the funds that have been specially established.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West derided us for having access funds for undergraduates of £5 million—but the correct figure is £14 million. These funds will be monitored once they are in operation to determine whether they are adequate for the needs for which they have been set up. That is the right way to tackle the matter.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was unanimous opposition to the proposal to remove housing benefit entitlement. He omitted to mention that a majority on the Social Security Advisory Committee accepted the Government's proposal to withdraw housing benefit from full-time students. The committee also shares our view that student support should come from the educational system rather than from social security benefits, and several of my hon. Friends backed up the Government by supporting the basic principle that we are implementing.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West then returned to a question that he had asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and said that we did not know what was happening in this area. I confess that the statistics that we have do not differentiate between different sorts of students. However, they clearly show that fewer than 20 per cent. of students claim housing benefit during term time, and for those who receive it, of whom some will retain entitlement, the average amount claimed is under £10 a week.
We heard a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and others about postgraduate students. Of course it is true that, if the postgraduate's spouse is not herself a student, the couple will still be entitled to housing benefit. Secondly, a postgraduate student pays only 20 per cent. of the community charge—not the full whack. The uprating of the grant for postgraduates is for this autumn, not for next April. The couple that the hon. Gentleman exemplified were paying a mortgage, in which case they would not be entitled to housing benefit.

Dr. Hampson: This is important, because the official press release from the Department of Education and Science said that the uprating of the postgraduate award is from April. Of course, postgraduates are not entitled to student loans if they have access to housing benefit.

Mr. Scott: One increase has already been announced and there will be another in April. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Education and Science are well aware of the need for support in this area and are honouring their obligations.
Postgraduate students may also qualify for education maintenance grants that are intended to cover all their financial needs for the year, including long vacations


falling within the course. An access fund of £6 million is being established specifically to provide additional support for postgraduates who face special difficulties.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) accused the Government of setting aside their normal policy of targeting. The new student support arrangements through the education system are not intended to replicate the benefit system. It was never intended that students should fall back on the benefits system and the fact that they do is a totally unplanned by-product of changes in the benefit system in recent years. Education maintenance is designed to meet the particular financial needs and expenditure patterns of students. The benefit system is not. We firmly believe that students should be supported by the education system and we are putting in more than £100 million of extra resources to achieve that.
The House is being asked to decide whether the Department of Social Secrity or the Department of Education and Science knows more about the needs of students and the need for educational maintenance. I have no doubt that the Department of Education and Science will be more in touch with student's state of life and will be better able to run a system suitable to their needs.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Order [this day] relating to the Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time) MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the said Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: then proceeded to designate Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 24, 25, 28, 42, 59, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 91 as appearing to him to involve questions of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on motions moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords amendment.

Lords amendment No. 8 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 9, before clause 6, to insert the following new Clause—
 . In section 21(6) of the 1986 Act, at the end there shall be inserted the words "and may provide for the regional or local level of housing costs and any payment for the purpose of meeting such costs to be taken into account in determining the maximum housing benefit where the claimant is a full-time student."

Question put,That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.:

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 218.

Division No. 287]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Benyon, W.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Batiste, Spencer
Brazier, Julian


Bellingham, Henry
Bright, Graham





Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Holt, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dykes, Hugh
Knowles, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gardiner, George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David


Hague, William
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus






Moore, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stern, Michael


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Lewis


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stokes, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Summerson, Hugo


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patnick, Irvine
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walden, George


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, Sir John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shelton, Sir William
Winterton, Nicholas


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speller, Tony
Mr. Tony Durant and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Tony


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Alton, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Anderson, Donald
Boyes, Roland


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beckett, Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Beggs, Roy
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Beith, A. J.
Carr, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clay, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livingstone, Ken


Coleman, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martlew, Eric


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Faulds, Andrew
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fearn, Ronald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morley, Elliot


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Parry, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pendry, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter L.


Graham, Thomas
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Redmond, Martin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Henderson, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Richardson, Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hood, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rooker, Jeff


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hoyle, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheerman, Barry


Illsley, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kilfedder, James
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kirkwood, Archy
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terry
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Worthington, Tony


Wallace, James
Wray, Jimmy


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N.



Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11, 29, 31, 33 and 40 to 42 disagreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to Lords amendment No. 42 disagreed to.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE RECOVERY FROM DAMAGES ETC OF SUMS EQUIVALENT TO BENEFIT

Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill:

(a) in page 28, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) for the words following that paragraph there shall be substituted the words—
but does not include benefit or an exempt payment or so much of any payment as is referable to costs incurred by any person;".

(b) in page 28, line 20, at end insert—
'(3) In consequence of the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, in the definition of "relevant period" in the said section 22(3), the words from "whether or not" onwards shall be omitted.

(4) In paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to that Act, after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—
(2A) A person who makes any payment (whether a compensation payment or not) on behalf of himself or another—


(a) in consequence of any accident, injury or disease suffered, or any damage to property sustained, by any other person, or
(b) which is transferable to any costs, or, in Scotland, expenses, incurred by any such other person by reason of such an accident, injury, disease or damage,

shall, if the Secretary of State so requests him in writing, furnish the Secretary of State with such particulars relating to the size and composition of the payment as may be specified in the request.".".—[Mr. Scott.]

Consequential amendment made: (c) in page 70, line 25, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 22(3), in the definition of "relevant period", the words from "whether or not" onwards.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question, with respect to the Lords amendments designated by him which had not been disposed of, That this house doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Lords amendments Nos. 24, 25, 28, 59, 70, 73, 74, 76 to 78, 83, 84, 86 to 89 and 91 agreed to. [ Special entry.]

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 to 3, 7 to 9, 11, 29, 31, 33, 40 and 41.—[Mr. Scott.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mrs. Gillian Shephard be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Scott.]

Ordered,
That three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Scott.]

Ordered,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Scott.]

Student Loans

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
The draft regulations are laid under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. They will establish the loans scheme with effect from the autumn of 1990. The Government agreed that they should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, a course which provides a welcome opportunity to lay the detail open to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. There was approval following a constructive debate in another place.
The draft regulations set out the detail of the policy that the Government have already announced and which the House has already debated. They demonstrate the merits of the flexible approach which the Government have adopted. That approach was criticised at the time, but I think that all can now see the advantages of the procedure that we have followed. The basic Act is underwritten by detailed regulations which are capable of being adjusted annually. Some of the provisions will need to be changed each year while others may need to be altered in the light of the monitoring to which we are committed. The general substance of the scheme is outlined in this first set of regulations, and that is why it should be adopted under the affirmative resolution procedure, which gives the House an opportunity to examine the scheme.
The draft regulations set out the detailed eligibility criteria for the loans scheme. Basically, the scheme is parallel to the criteria for mandatory awards, but we have deliberately drawn the criteria wider. This means that 50,000 or more students who are not eligible for grant will be eligible for loan. The regulations set out the terms of the loan. The amount that is outstanding will be indexed to inflation so that no real interest will be charged. The repayment period will be five years, or seven years for those who are taking the longest courses. We expect that the amount of repayment each year will be about £400 per annum for those who are eligible to repay. The deferment and cancellation arrangements will protect those with low incomes. Under the regulations, no graduate with an income below £11,500 will be expected to repay his loan.
Finally, the regulations set out the responsibilities of the higher education institutions in confirming their students' eligibility. The House will have seen the minutes of evidence of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which caused some excitement last week. I am pleased to see in his place an eminent member of that Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Now that the House has had a chance to study these matters, I hope that it will think that any delay has been worth while.
I should explain to those who have not read the regulations that they bear on three main points. First, there is clarification of the position of disabled borrowers. That is to be found in regulation 8. Regulation 9 includes provision—this has been announced already—for the disregard of disability-related benefits when income is assessed for deferment purposes. Disabled borrowers may claim deferment on higher incomes than other borrowers.

In regulation 8, we have added to the discretion of the Student Loans Company Ltd. in relation to the starting time of, or the period for, the disabled borrower's repayments.
Regulation 3(3) is a technical amendment which deals with loans for Scottish minors. It recognises that, under contracts that are governed by Scottish law, a minor should obtain the prior consent of his curator, who in most instances is his parent or guardian. Courts in Scotland may possibly take the view that a minor can validly ratify contract on reaching his majority only if he obtains such consent or if he was already independent of his family when he entered into the contract.
Regulations allow for students under 18 years of age on higher education courses to be eligible for loans. Obviously we must expect such students to repay their loans once they have graduated.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Have the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish banks formally agreed to this?

Mr. Jackson: The issue of Scottish minors and their responsibilities vis-a-vis credit is one of the more recondite points of Scottish law. There are different views on the matter. It has never been tested in the courts. The Government take the view that the issue is not ratification. If the issue is enforceability of the loan, the loan will be enforceable.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not quite so technical a matter as the Minister makes out. It is a practical matter and affects many people. I repeat the blunt question that I asked: have the Law Society of Scotland and the banks agreed to this? The frank answer is no, is it not?

Mr. Jackson: I have difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's question, because I do not see how the banks come into it. I do not believe that the Law Society of Scotland has been asked about the matter. Ultimately this is a matter for the courts to determine. If the hon. Gentleman studies the regulations, he will see that the issue that we are considering is ratification at the age of 18, not enforceability. The Government's view is that the loans will be enforceable.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that on 11 May the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe, meeting at Strasbourg, passed a unanimous resolution, to the effect that
Systems of loans … can be encouraged".
That resolution was proposed by the rapporteur, Mr. Bassinet, a French Socialist. Not one of the 12 British Labour Members of Parliament who are members of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly voted against it. Why is the Labour party so hopelessly inconsistent? Why does it say one thing at Strasbourg and the opposite at Westminster?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend asks a very good question, but we could come even closer to home. There is a marked difference of emphasis and tone on student loans between some of the Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen in this House and some of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in another place. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that inconsistency.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister suggest that the Government are so incompetent in the law relating to minors in Scotland that they cannot draft


appropriate regulations, but they have to rely on test cases in Scottish courts? It is ridiculous to place any Scottish student in that position. I ask the Minister to take the regulations back. It seems to me that the Government drafted panic measures before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments met.

Mr. Jackson: The enforceability of loans against minors who take them out before they reach 18 is an obscure area of Scottish law. There are differences of view about it. The issue can be determined only by the courts. Under the regulations, students who are minors will be allowed to make use of a loan. That is entirely as it should be. We expect the students to repay their loans. The general rule is—

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the fact that the Minister of State is not occupying her normal place on the Treasury Bench have any implications, as rumoured in the press, or does it mean that we ought to be told something that so far she has not been allowed to tell us?

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that the hon. Gentleman had his answer while he was raising his point of order.

Mr. Jackson: The general rule is that students under 18 can claim the loan. We expect them to repay it. To do so, we need to protect the taxpayers' interests. I am sure that the House will agree with me that the interests of taxpayers, whether they are in England or Scotland, should be safeguarded.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I have an interest to declare, in that I have two children who will be going to university this autumn, and they will probably be taking out loans. My hon. Friend has been talking about the enforceability of loans in Scotland. Is he implying that, if the loans turn out not to be enforceable in Scotland, Scottish students will not have to pay back the money, whereas my children will have to pay it back because they have attended English universities?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is looking too far ahead. There is a question about the enforceability of loans to minors in Scotland. The Government believe that such students would be obliged to repay their loans for that period but there is some dispute about the matter. We have made arrangements in the regulations for ratification as a way of handling the problem. We shall have many opportunities to return to the issue, because repayments will not start for some time to come.

Mr. Jack Straw: Have the Scottish Law Officers been consulted about this matter, and what is their opinion?

Mr. Jackson: The matter has been discussed within the Government. As I have said, the Government's view is that loans taken out by minors in Scotland are enforceable, but there is an argument about it. That was one of the matters that surfaced during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Let me proceed now—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jackson: I shall give way finally to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Hughes: Why will not the Under-Secretary be honest with the House and say that there is an omission from the regulations because the Government cannot deal with the point? And is not that only one of the omissions? For example, the name of the company administering the scheme is omitted: the regulations contain no reference to the Student Loans Company. Does that betoken an omission or was it the result of an intentional decision to provide for privatisation in the near future?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is very good at speculation. The Government have said previously that that course might be followed—it might not be—but it is certainly not an intentional feature of the regulations that that should be so. No decisions either way on that point are made in the regulations.
Let me press on to the third technical point arising from the regulations—the clarification of the role of the higher education institutions. For those who are following the matter in close detail, that is dealt with in regulation 11(2).
In assessing students' eligibility for loans, the higher education institutions must determine whether they meet residence requirements identical to those that apply for mandatory awards, which are verified by the local education authorities. That is mostly a straightforward matter, but there are a few cases in which detailed information may be needed from the student.
The regulations now ensure that the institution's investigations go only as far is reasonably practicable. There is no need for them to pursue the matter exhaustively. In addition, the unqualified requirement in the earlier draft to certify the accuracy of information on students' eligibility is replaced by the requirement to certify accuracy to the best of the institution's knowledge and belief.
I take this opportunity to repeat the tribute that has been paid in another place to the constructive approach that is adopted by the institutions' administrators, who have been attending a series of meetings and seminars arranged by the Student Loans Company. They have provided invaluable feedback. They have allowed the company to refine its procedure. They have also demonstrated their professional commitment to making the scheme work in the interests of their students, and I am sure that that approach will attract the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
On 20 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Student Loans Company's provisional budget for 1990–91 is £14.25 million exclusive of VAT. That includes payments to the higher education institutions for certifying their students' eligibility—£3.50 for each correctly completed application form. The administration costs therefore fall within the £10 million to £20 million range to which the Government referred throughout the passage of the Bill, and are far lower than the extraordinary figures that were bandied about by the supporters of alternative approaches. I can remember some of them citing the figure of £150 million.
Hon. Members already know the justification for the Government's scheme, but let me repeat the basic points. The idea of the loans scheme is to lift a financial restriction on the growth of higher education. There are now more than 1 million students in all kinds of higher education


—almost a quarter of a million more than in 1979. Both the Government and the Opposition are committed to continued expansion. However, the expanding cost of supporting students' living expenses cannot be supported by taxpayers and parents alone. Between 1962 and 1989–90, the cost in current prices of student grants has increased by 264 per cent. Parental contributions have increased under successive Governments and about 40 per cent. of students whose parents are assessed for a contribution find them unable or unwilling to make up the full amount.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Is the Minister going back on earlier answers that he has given to me, which show that, over the next 20 years, it would cost £2.17 billion more to operate the scheme than it would cost to uprate grants in line with inflation?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that with any loans scheme there is a period when money is advanced before it starts to come back. If the hon. Member studies the White Paper he will see our projections and we have given the basis of the projections in exhaustive answers to the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary questions. As the number of students starts to grow substantially at the end of the decade, we will reach a point at which the student loans scheme will be repaying larger and larger sums of money and that will help to fund the expansion to which we are committed and which we intend to pay for in the way that we are proposing. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is committed to expanding, but he has not said anything about how he will pay for that.
Loans offer additional funding through the anticipation by students of their own future income as graduates. We follow the line that is taken by every other country that has large numbers of students. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to other countries that have large numbers of students in higher education. All those countries have loan schemes, and those schemes help fund those students.
The loans are being offered on generous terms and there is full protection through deferment for those not achieving high incomes. Providing additional resources as grant is simply not a viable option, as no savings would accrue. The cost to the taxpayer would continue to rise inexorably.
Around 500,000 students will be eligible for loans in 1990–91. We are budgeting to provide £178 million in loans next year and there will be more than that if the take-up exceeds 80 per cent.—the sum is not cash-limited. We are also making available £14 million of access funds for those who are eligible for loans. Discounting the estimate of £68 million in social security benefits forgone by those students, there is an increase in the public support for eligible students of about £124 million. Students will also, of course, benefit from the uprating of mandatory grant. Loan and grant together will constitute a 25 per cent. increase in student funding in the course of a single year.
There are substantial additional resources for students in the next academic year. The freezing of the grant means reducing the parental contribution in real terms from 1992

eventually to little over half its present level. We have in prospect the relief of a burden on taxpayers as loan repayments accrue and cumulative savings are produced.
The scheme is necessary to the future of higher education. The regulations are necessary for the implementation of the scheme. There is no need to debate the principles of the scheme, but I shall respond later to the points that are raised about the details of the regulations. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: We oppose the regulations and the scheme behind them. The loans scheme is ill-considered, misconceived and extraordinarily wasteful of public funds. As the Minister has just admitted, it will cost over £2,000 million extra above the cost of uprating the grant system in line with inflation between now and the year 2009—nearly 20 years away.
The scheme has been brought in with a degree of administrative chaos that has rarely been seen for any new scheme. That is reflected in the fact that the regulations had to be withdrawn last Tuesday and in the way in which they were pushed through the other place. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who we should remember is chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers, launched a strong attack on the way in which the regulations were physically presented to that House. He said:
Can my noble Friend really say that this dirty bit of paper with inked-in corrections, deletions and amendments all over it and with two typed-in so-called riders is the form in which your Lordships' House should be asked to approve legislation?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 1766.]
That would be funny were it not serious. It shows that Ministers have been working hand to mouth, not knowing what they have been doing from one minute to the next. That was clearly demonstrated when the Minister failed to answer a number of questions about the applicability of Scottish law to the regulations.
The regulations are unfair. They provide no help for postgraduates, and there are no special conditions for low-paid professionals such as teachers or nurses. It is true that, if someone is earning less than £965 a month—£11,500 a year—he or she can defer the loan, but, during the period of deferral, for every minute that he or she defers, interest accrues. Therefore, people will have to pay more when they come to repayment when their salary rises above £11,580. In case the Minister is wondering about that, it is specified clearly for the avoidance of doubt in paragraph 9.6 of the regulations. No help is provided for women returners to work, and there is a lack of serious concession for disabled students.
Let me refer to the detail of the regulations and to the applicability to them of Scots law. They had to be withdrawn in their initial draft form because it was clear that they did not properly take account of the law of Scotland relating to minors. I concede that the law of Scotland relating to minors is complicated. In certain circumstances, under the doctrine of quadrennium utile, it is possible for a minor to enter into a contract and for it then to be voidable at his suit within a period of about four years if he can show that he entered into the contract under duress. There are also certain circumstances that appear to apply here. It is essential that a contract for a loan is guaranteed by the student's or the minor's curator—his parent or guardian.
I, in common with the Minister and his officials, am no expert on Scots law, but it is appalling that the Minister has admitted that no consultation took place with the Law Society of Scotland. Nor, as became clear from his evasion of my question, has there been any consultation with Scottish Law Officers. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that the matter was dealt with in government. Everyone knows that, when Law Officers are brought in, Ministers are able—they frequently do so—to state categorically before the House that the Law Officers have been consulted and that they assent to what has been brought before the House. In this case, the Minister either does not know whether the Law Officers have been brought in or, as I suspect, knows that they have not been brought in and wishes to avoid giving that information to the House.
There is then the detailed matter of the deferment of the arrangements that apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was told by the Minister:
The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings."—[Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 504.]
Hon. Members were pleased to hear that, but how does his answer square with information that the Secretary of State gave in press notice 6590 on 26 February 1990? It said specifically:
Verification could be required of banks.
Paragraph 6 of the press notice states:
In applying, the borrower authorises checks of current income with employer, bank, etc.
Are banks to be consulted without the direct knowledge of the student application?
Then there are the duties of the Student Loans Company and the duty of the institutions that are required to implement the regulations. There is a marked contrast between the great powers given to the Student Loans Company and the Secretary of State which are not specified in the regulations—indeed, as has already been pointed out, the Student Loans Company is not even mentioned in the regulations—and the overbearing duties that are imposed on higher education. Why is the Students Loans Company not specified at any point in the regulations, and why not are its duties specified?
Ministers have produced an extraordinarily complicated administrative scheme for student loans. Under paragraph 11(5) no fewer than three separate forms will be required from individual students. Under paragraph 11(2), the student is issued with and has to return an
eligibility questionnaire provided by the loans administrator.
Having returned that, under paragraph 11(2)(d), the student then has to complete
an eligibility form provided by the loans administrator",
and then, under paragraph 11(2)(g), the student is provided with and must complete
a loan application form provided by the loans administrator.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has claimed—Opposition Members accept this—that the procedures are
unnecessarily cumbersome … Universities are quite capable of making effective administrative arrangements and may well be able to find more efficient ways of doing things. As currently laid down the procedures are more complicated than for grant applications to the LEAs.

Is it really necessary for students to be required to complete three separate forms before they get a loan? Why cannot they complete one form, and if they turn out to be ineligible, be sent a note telling them so? What is the purpose of laying one layer of bureaucracy upon another, upon another?
There is also the question of the fee of £3.50 to each institution in respect of each set of applications that is completed. That fee is insufficient, given the burden of the administrative arrangements.

Mr. Andy Stewart: More resources.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State's private secretary, who should know that his job is to be seen, not heard. says, "More resources." As he knows only too well, this is a very wasteful scheme—and his deeply embarrassed Secretary of State knows it, too. We wish the scheme to be scrapped altogether, but if it is to go ahead, the Government must pay the institutions the cost of the scheme, or, the institutions will be using money that was given to them for other purposes, such as teaching students, to run this damn silly scheme. Is the Minister genuinely satisfied that the £3.50 fee is sufficient?
During the considerations of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the official who gave evidence accepted that the original draft was "very harsh, perhaps … oppressive" on the institutions that are required to implement the regulations. It is a great tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and his colleagues in this place, and counsel to the Commiteee, that they were able to force these changes in the regulations. However, the truth is that the regulations are still oppressive on the institutions and, above all, on the students.
There is a nice irony and contrast between the debate that we have just had and this debate. In the previous debate, at the behest of the Government, a carefully targeted benefit, housing benefit, was denied to students. Now we are having a debate that will force through regulations to help those students who need it least. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said on 20 October 1989:
Far from helping poorer people to gain access to higher education, the scheme will amount to an indiscriminate subsidy to the middle classes who need it least."—[Official Report, 20 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 428.]

Mr. Spencer Batiste: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am just about to complete my remarks.
This is the truth about the scheme. In tonight's Evening Standard, we read that, according to a Gallup poll, four out of five parents believe that the state should pay all or part of the costs of their children's higher education, and only 4 per cent. think that their children should contribute anything to their further education—[Interruption.]—except through taxes, of course. That finding is paralleled only by the proportion of Conservative Members who think that the Minister should stay on after the mini-reshuffle.

Mr. Batiste: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, I am just about to complete my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste).

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman said that a Labour Government would scrap the scheme. If that is added to his intention to uprate the benefit in the form of grant, what does he intend to do about all the students who are included in the loans scheme but are not at present eligible for grant? Will he include them in a new scheme? Has he quantified that cost, and if so, where does he intend to find the money?

Mr. Straw: I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's first intervention on the grants scheme. If he had attended the debates on it more assiduously, as many of his hon. Friends have, he would have worked out what they have and what has made them oppose the scheme with such force—that not only is this a rotten and unfair scheme but it will cost the country far more than the grants scheme. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we are satisfied that by replacing loans with fair grants we shall not only do better for students but save the country a great deal of money.
This is a rotten scheme and these are rotten regulations, and we shall oppose them tonight.

11 pm

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: In this debate on the regulations, I do not want to go over in detail again why I find them so astonishing. That is why I propose to take only two or three minutes to say why I oppose the regulations.
No one outside the House who is associated with higher education has a good word to say for what we are doing tonight. I should be interested if any hon. Member could mention any responsible body which says that it is the way forward.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, in Sweden, the socialist Education Minister says that a loan scheme is the right way to proceed and that he is not prepared to introduce a grants scheme in Sweden, because it would damage the motivation of students in Sweden?

Mr. Miscampbell: Of course, other countries have schemes which are different from that which I favour. The West Germans are changing their system. The Americans are also changing their minds. But we must understand that we are tail-end Charlie in producing graduates. It is not a question of charging students but of finding out how we can cease to have the lowest production of graduates in the industrial western world. Of course, it would be those who have no difficulty. We should examine West Germany's production of graduates and compare it with what we produce. We should ask why there is a difference and what we should do to produce more.
I shall take only a moment or two, because other hon. Members wish to speak. We must understand that the scheme will produce nothing for the Government as we move into the next century. It will do nothing to supply our present lack of engineers and many other graduates whom we need badly and who are the seedcorn of our future. We are not producing sufficient numbers of such people.
My constituency of Blackpool produces people capable of going to the top. Many of them come from fairly humble backgrounds. Let us consider a simple practical problem. How will it help us if, by the turn of the century, such people face a heavy debt? Never mind the figure now

—it may be £300 or £400—but by the end of the century students may have a debt of £7,000 or more around their necks. How will that help us to solve our problems?
At the beginning of the 1980s, students were radicalised. By the middle of the 1980s—I know, because my children were educated through the 1980s—they had stopped agitating. They had decided that a good job was available for them and that, with a good degree, they had a future. That has all changed now. The Government have simply made students today angry with us. How will that help?
It may be that those who have a privileged education and a further degree could be asked to pay more. I do not agree with that, because I believe that such people are the seedcorn of all our futures. If one accepts that, that is what should happen. It is not as if the scheme were the only one open to the Government. The academics offered two schemes, either of which would do. Why not simply pick up the money in income tax from those who had a proper and substantial grant, if that is what is wanted?
If, 25 years ago, when I and, dare I say, others were adopted by our executive, I had said, "I propose that when your children have completed their university education they should leave university with £7,000 round their neck in debt," I would not be here, for the good reason that I would not have been adopted.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). He spelled out the fundamental objection that there must be to the student loans scheme which the Government have persisted in introducing. He is absolutely right to object to it on that principal ground. His objection goes to the heart of the debate, although Ministers have seen fit simply to shrug it off, despite being plagued with difficulties that others predicted they would run into from the start. A Government with a little more humility might well have withdrawn the proposals at an early stage or at least gone back to the drawing board to start again, rather than attempt to cobble the regulations together as they went along. The Government will be saddled politically with this for a long time.
Rather than make general criticisms, I shall deal with specific points, as important detailed problems have already been highlighted in the debate. The problems arise precisely because of the way in which the Government have cobbled the regulations together in response to one crisis after another as their original proposals were undermined and fell apart, even as they tried to present them.
The Minister should at least have the humility to acknowledge that this is an important debate and that it is as well that it is taking place under the affirmative resolution procedure. He was wrong to reject that principle originally as unnecessary. If nothing else, the hasty, additional handwritten amendments to the regulations, even as we came to debate them, and the embarrassing events of last week have proved that this is a worthwhile procedure.

Mr. Jackson: I am happy to pay tribute to the Liberals, who proposed in the House this idea, which we decided to accept in the House of Lords.

Mr. Taylor: That is courteous of the Minister, and I thank him for his comment. I hope that in future he will advocate the principle on Bills and on other occasions. In some circumstances, it is a lifebelt for Governments and Parliament.
Why does there appear to have been no consultation on the regulations, at least in relation to part V? It is hard to believe that it is Department of Education and Science policy not to pursue consultation on these matters. Had there been consultation, some of the problems would not have arisen and some of the hasty amendments would not have been needed at an earlier stage.
Given that the Department has not consulted on the matter, why has it opted for such a cumbersome administrative system? It requires questionnaire forms, security checks, eligibility forms, further security checks and final despatch to the Student Loans Company. I cannot believe that a system as administratively complicated as that was proposed by Price Waterhouse or any other leading management consultant. I wonder why Ministers have insisted that such a system should be used.
I am amazed that the regulations lay out the range of specified tasks for universities and polytechnics, but do not even mention by name the company that will administer the loans scheme. It seems that civil servants, in drafting the regulations, have sought to put the problems that they are creating on to the universities and polytechnics that have opposed the system and not acknowledged—through detailed regulations about the operation of the Student Loans Company and its taking on board some of the difficulties—that such problems should be tackled by the Government Department that pushed the system through.
We have every reason to expect such details about the Student Loans Company to appear in the legislation, not least because the Bill states that we shall receive them. The fact that such details are missing has already led my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to ask whether the Minister would pursue privatisation for the Student Loans Company. The Minister has again, following a number of interviews outside this place, suggested that that option is still on the agenda.
Perhaps the Minister will make his position on that clearer later. If we have not received the details in order to open the way for privatisation of the company, would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to spell out what the administrator of student loans would be expected to do as a public, and potentially private, service?
We can envisage moving rapidly towards the privatisation of the Students Loans Company, as the Government originally intended. We shall do so without any idea or debate in the House of the details of what the company, in the public or private sector, is expected to do, how it is expected to do it and what commitments and obligations it will have. It is high time for the Minister to spell out the discussions that have taken place with the Department about how the company will operate and what its long-term future is. I do not believe that discussions about the possibility of privatisation and how it will happen, have not taken place in the Department.
There has been strong pressure from both Houses about future loan arrangements for disabled people. Concern about that should unite Members across the House. Schedule 2(3) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 makes it clear that the availability of loans is not intended to bring hardship to any disabled borrower. The

regulations have gone some way towards meeting that aim, but they have not achieved what was intended, particularly by the other place.
The fatal flaw lies in the tie for a student or subsequent graduate to be in receipt of a disablement benefit before he or she is eligible to begin repayment at a later date or to have the length of repayment extended. It is well known that many disabled students who come within precisely the criteria mentioned in both Houses are not in receipt of benefit, of which the outstanding group must be deaf students, although there are many others as well.
Research shows that deaf students, who will mostly not be eligible for this sort of support, are likely to earn lower incomes than other students after graduation. British studies confirm that the number of deaf students going into higher paid professions is proportionately lower than the number of other students. Disabled people face living costs associated with their disability, and that is riot recognised in the regulations. By tying the regulations to eligibility for benefit, the Government have missed the essential point, which is that we should tie repayment to ability to repay, not to eligibility for benefit.
The regulations are unamendable—that is one of the faults in the way in which the government have decided to proceed—so I want an assurance from the Minister that, when the regulations made under the Education (Student Loans) Act are examined next year, the Department will ensure that disabled students are not defined by virtue of their receipt of benefit; a wider definition of disability must be used, under which repayment exemptions for disabled borrowers are based on need, not benefit entitlement.
The regulations fail to make clear the legal situation of people under the age of 18 who take out loans. The Under-Secretary of State referred to Scottish law, and we shall await developments with interest. But it appears that the Department itself is uncertain about the position of 18-year-olds, whether in Scotland or in England or Wales. What preparations has it made to fight legal battles in a year or so—or even next September—when people start to make claims against the Government and refuse to pay?
It is dubious whether the Government, under any legal system, can impose on students who are not old enough to enter into one an agreement by which they must abide under threat of receiving no further payments. That they should attempt this is extraordinary.
The Government stand condemned by the regulations in general and the student loan scheme in particular—and by the faults of detail that they have left in the regulations. The Liberal Democrats will vote against them, and they deserve to be defeated.

Mr. John Marshall: I shall try to be briefer than the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who rather selfishly used up too much time.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that he was in favour of a fair grant scheme. Does he believe that the present grant system is fair given that it denies grants to some students and means that others do not receive the assessed parental contribution? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said that no academic approves of these regulations. As a former academic, I must point out to him


that 364 academic economists signed a letter to The Times in 1981. They were wrong, just as the academic opponents of the regulations are wrong.
I recognise that the universities of this country offer a first-rate system of education and provide a unique ladder of opportunity for the students who go to them. I welcome the regulations because they will play an essential part in the expansion of higher education.
The paradox is that we have the most generous system of student support in the western world, and a lower percentage of young people in higher education. The hon Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) adversely compared the United Kingdom with South Korea. She did not tell the House that Japan, which has more students than the United Kingdom, has no system of university grants. Our opponents ignore the fact that our present grants system is unsustainable if we are to have the expansion in higher education that we all want. The choice facing us is between grants for the few or higher education for the many. The vast majority of our people want to see more people entering higher education rather than a system of privileged grants for the few who are currently in education.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: rose—

Mr. Marshall: I will not give way. My hon. Friend has said that I am the temporary Member for Hendon, South. The temporary Member for Hendon, South is not giving way to the temporary Member for Cambridge.
Our opponents also fail to recognise that even with the proposed changes we will still have the most generous system of student support anywhere in the western world. Our critics compare our performance with that of Japan, Korea, Germany, and Sweden but fail to say that even under these proposals we will be far more generous than any country that they can name. The proposals are socially just. On the whole, those going to university can look forward to a much higher income than those who do not have the privilege of such an education.
It is right that those who benefit financially from higher education should make a contribution, albeit small, to the cost of that education by repaying a loan. Of course some graduates will have a low income, but that is no argument for saying that no one should repay the loan. It is an argument for deferring the repayment for such people, as the scheme does. It is also an argument for higher salaries. It is no argument against a loan scheme to say that teachers, vicars, nurses and social workers are paid too little. That is an argument for paying such people more and not for presuming that in our system of support for university students all students are underpaid. The vast majority of British students receive very large incomes when they enter the real world.
Those who talk about access fail to mention that, last October, a record number of students entered higher education. A parliamentary reply to me last week showed that in October there will be a 4 per cent. increase in the number of students going to university. Those who will repay the loans do not share the doubts of my hon. Friend for Cambridge. They know the worth of higher education and are willing to take the chance.
I am appalled by the patronising attitude of some people towards children whose parents are on low

incomes. Those potential students recognise that a course of higher education will provide them with the best possible opportunity in life. They will not be put off by the need to repay a loan at some stage in the future. They recognise that, if they do not take the opportunity of higher education, their future will be bleak.
It is important for children from low-income families to stay on at school. If they do not remain there beyond the age of 16, they have no chance of entering higher education. The Conservative party has been responsible for encouraging more children to stay on after the age of 16. The introduction of the GCSE, which is more interesting and relevant than the old GCE O-level, will encourage more students to stay at school and proceed to A-levels and university. The regulations are fair to the taxpayer, the student and the country. They will help to underwrite the expansion in higher education which all Conservative Members so earnestly desire.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I genuinely intend to be brief; however, I feel that it is incumbent on me, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to confirm that the evidence that the House decided should be available has illuminated the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the debate in the House of Lords. It is worth pointing out that the House of Lords cannot debate these or any other regulations until the Joint Committee has reported: it was therefore quite wrong of the Minister to try to continue the debate—as he did at one stage—when a vital piece of information had not been made available.
It is clear from the evidence that the regulations were rushed into existence. It is worth pointing out that they were changed only on the representation of counsel to the Committee, who pointed out that, in their original form, they made unusual use of powers and were almost certainly ultra vires, as well as being mistaken in another context. That referred to the proposals for disabled students, the Scottish legislation and the attempt to ensure that the academic institutions provided information that was certified correct when it was patently impossible for any such body to do so. As a result of those representations, and for no other reason, the regulations were withdrawn and retabled.
It is incumbent on the Department and the House to endorse regulations that are as clear as possible, so that people—students in particular—are not faced with court actions, whose costs could run into tens of thousands of pounds, in an attempt to clarify the legal position. I am delighted that tonight the House has demonstrated the value of the Joint Committee's work—work that the Minister was prepared to ignore.
I have dealt with the Committee's point of view; I wish now to speak briefly about the merits of the regulations, with which the Committee does not deal. The loan scheme is anathema to me. I speak as probably the only hon. Member who had to go to university with a loan: in 1953, when it was very difficult to obtain a grant, the local authority refused me one. Had I known that I would have to go through university on an annual loan, I would not have entered in the first place. Instead of spending pleasurable weeks at home, as all the sons and daughters


of wealthy Tories will be able to do, I had to work week after week in a part-time job to eke out my university existence.
The loan was a millstone round our necks. I say "our necks" because it continued well into my married life—and I was married at 29; I was not exactly a child groom. The burden of those repayments was still there in my early 30s. I would not wish to impose such an onerous duty on any other student, and for that reason alone I strongly oppose the regulations: they are unfair and unjust. All credit to Tory Members who have had the guts to stand up and put their point of view—to the intense and sneering displeasure of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who dismissed a potential intervener with a disdain and lack of courtesy that I have never before witnessed on the Conservative Benches.
I can say from my experience that the loans system is unfair, unjust and onerous, and should be opposed.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friends will know that, way back in the days when the Conservatives were in opposition, I supported one of the colleagues of the present Leader of the Opposition—a member of his education team when he was a political adviser to Baroness Castle—who advocated student loans. It always seemed admirable in principle, for the very reasons that the then Government advisers gave, which is that the grant system is a millstone around the neck of expansion of higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said. I have opposed the scheme as inadequate in a number of ways. I shall now ask some specific questions about the regulations.
The regulations say about the designation of courses that the Secretary of State will have power to
designate courses of higher education at institutions other than institutions receiving support from public funds.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister say categorically that he will be allowing loans for students attending the University of Buckingham? Will he consider other vocational qualifications, which increasing numbers of students are taking, as the Government's philosophy encourages them to do, at institutions other than universities and polytechnics?
As that is about qualifications through institutions, what would be the position regarding the eligibility of categories of students? Am I right to suggest that nothing in these regulations, and certainly nothing in the statute, prevents my hon. Friend the Minister, or his successors, from allowing loans to be granted to postgraduates or part-time students? I recall that the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, came out against student loans for graduates, but was keen on grants to postgraduates. My hon. Friend should explain whether, with the statute as we have it, that would be possible.
An admirable provision allows deferment and reduced repayments for those who have problems. It says that a person will not have to repay if his income for any month does not exceed £965. That is a precise figure. Is the suggestion that, as inflation goes on—even under this Government, it goes on—the Minister will regularly return to the House with regulations, which will all be subject to affirmative resolution of the House?
I agree with the provision in regulation 9(4):

In determining whether a borrower's gross income in any month exceeds the amount specified in paragraph (1) no account shall be taken of any disability-related benefits paid to him in that month.
However, what about other sources of income? What about unemployment pay, and what is the position of deemed interest? We have the acute problem with the community charge that, under social security regulations, it is necessary, when determining the income rate at which the threshold operates, to count an exorbitant interest rate, of 20 per cent. or so on capital. Does that apply to mature students, who may have to defer their payments?
Will my hon. Friend look at the German scheme? Regulation 7(5) on page 4, says:
Nothing … shall be taken to prevent a borrower from reducing or discharging his liability".
That is admirable. If people wish to pay off their loan faster than five years, that is great. However, are we not in the business of building incentives into the system? In Germany, lower interest is charged if one pays back early. Equally, it should be possible to get concessions on the interest and repayments if one gets good grades. That is also a feature in many other loans systems. Why are we not thinking like that?

Mr. Mike Watson: The debate on these regulations was delayed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, because of Government incompetence. The evidence that we sought on Tuesday last week is now available. Those of us who have had the chance to look at it know that the officials concede that the first set of regulations published were flawed in that they did not adequately reflect the law north of the border.
That was just the latest in a production line of disasters throughout the sorry passage of the Education (Student Loans) Act. It has been blighted by one disaster after another. The consultation process on the loans scheme was a sham. On Second Reading, Conservative Members lined up to attack the plans, and the Bill was a disgrace—only a few pages of enabling clauses, with no mention of the limits of the scheme. During the Committee stage, in which I participated, the faults in the Government's arguments were largely exposed.
Matters went from bad to worse. Earlier this year, under pressure from all sides, the banks withdrew their support and left the scheme in tatters. It had no friends then, and it has picked up few in the intervening period. The Under-Secretary contributed to the Bill's misfortunes at its various stages. On Second Reading, he made the remarkable statement that the top-up loan equated to nothing more than the cost of a skiing holiday, seemingly unaware that skiing holidays are relatively rare in my constituency and, I am sure, in his.
In Committee, he made another remarkable comment to the president of the Edinburgh university students' association. He said that he had published the address of the Student Loans Company in Glasgow for the specific reason that the demonstrators could smash its windows, and apparently thereby give added weight to the Government's case. That was mentioned in Committee. The comment may have been made in a jocular manner, but it called into question the Under-Secretary's judgment in the way that he has guided the Bill through the House.
When the Bill went to another place, several important amendments were carried—but the Government ran


scared and, in a dramatic move, introduced a guillotine to curtail debate on the Lords amendments. They did the same this evening when entitlement of students to housing benefit under the Social Security Bill was discussed. The Bill has been little more than an unmitigated disaster for the Government, yet it will be forced through at the last minute.
Two substantive issues arise in Scots law. It is regrettable that it is impossible to amend the regulations to take account of them. First, the regulations set out the Scottish legal position—that a loan to a minor cannot be made without parental consent, other than a minor without a curator. Secondly, what will happen to a student with a curator or parent who refuses to sanction the loan? Would the Student Loans Company still make the loan? If it did, that would be against Scottish law. It gives rise to the question of discrimination as English and Welsh students do not require parental consent; they need only have the agreement ratified when they reach the age of 18. That is an important point, because more 17-year-olds go into higher education in Scotland than in England or Wales because of the different system of education.
A sizeable minority of parents fail to complete the forms for student grants, so it is possible that a greater number will not give their consent to a loan application. In Scotland, if a loan were granted on the expectation of the consent of the parent or curator, but it was subsequently refused, I presume that the loan would have to be returned and the agreement made null and void. I hope that the Under-Secretary answers those points.
The regulations do not rectify an anomaly. All that they do is to spell out the legal position. They do not facilitate the provision of loans to all eligible under-18s in Scotland, and that is just one of a number of serious faults in the regulations and in the Bill.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The objections to the regulations seem to fall under two broad heads, and the first set relate to technicalities. Those who are familiar with parliamentary procedures will know that any regulations, in whatever form of words, on a controversial issue of this sort would undoubtedly be subject to criticism. If every proposal that has been advanced by the opponents had been set out in the regulations, the opponents would have found other proposals. The regulations need to be in place for the coming academic year, and the Government have acted properly in trying to bring them forward as quickly as possible, so that there is as much time as possible for them to be understood and implemented.
It is no fault of the Government's that the banks withdrew from discussions at a late stage and that alternative arrangements had to be made for the administration of the scheme. It is—[Interruption.] The scoffing of Opposition Members reminds me of a saying that was coined at the time when the railways were being built. It was said that no one would ask a stagecoach company to build a railway.
With the benefit of hindsight it was not an especially good idea to ask the banks to be involved in the student loans scheme. We were asking them to act in direct competition with a fair part of their lending. Only this week I visited a polytechnic, at which the academics said

clearly that one of the benefits of the scheme will be that many students who are borrowing from the banks by using plastic credit cards and paying 34 per cent. and more in interest charges will be relieved from their present onerous obligations.
Most students who go to a university, as I did many years ago, and many other students, end up borrowing. They borrow on straight commercial terms, which leads to an onerous burden. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has drawn attention to that already. The scheme will enable borrowing to take place on much more realistic terms.

Mr. Miscampbell: How will the scheme save students a penny? Loans that are made under the scheme will be only a substitute for grants. Students will be borrowing from the banks as well as entering into loans under the scheme.

Mr. Batiste: That just is not so. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will come to understand the position more clearly when he thinks about it.
If students want to borrow more than the sum which is made available to them under the scheme, they will be able to do so. The reality, however, is that students will have a loan option that will broaden the base of their financing from Government grant alone, and on terms that are far more advantageous than at present through normal commercial lending.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) will know, there is never a final word on detailed regulations for a complex scheme. Experience will be gained as years pass and lessons will be learnt. I hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will have an open mind when they consider ways in which the technicalities of the scheme can be improved.
Whatever the regulations were about and whatever they included, the Opposition would oppose them. That is because they do not want a loans scheme in principle. There lies the fundamental division between the two sides of the House. That is why I ask the hon. Member of Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Opposition spokesman on education and science, what his commitment to an alternative would be. We heard the same weasel words from the Opposition tonight as we heard from them last week about schools. We are told, "We shall introduce a fair loans scheme." It is then said, "When resources permit, we shall add resources to the scheme." No one believes that a Labour Government would ever be capable of managing the economy better than a Conservative Government. Extra resources would never be available to a Labour Government.
We know from our surgery experience that there are flaws in the existing grant system. Students tell us that they cannot obtain either mandatory or discretionary grants to enable them to take courses. Those students are not covered by the present system and they will be major winners as a result of any new proposals that are included in the regulations. When I asked the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who led for the Opposition, whether that large number of potential students would benefit from the Labour party's alternative proposals, he deliberately avoided answering the question. The Labour party will continue to avoid answering it. The hon. Gentleman has no discretion to commit additional resources to student funding.
I shall use the device that the hon. Gentleman used last week. If he is prepared to give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party that in his definition of a fair loan scheme he will include in the uprating of all students who at present do not qualify for grants but who will qualify under this scheme for loans, including help for all those students who are entitled to a parental contribution but who do not get it, I shall give way to him now. I see that the hon. Gentleman is making not the slightest effort to rise to his feet. Nor will he, because the Opposition's case is based on humbug. They imply that they will devote more resources. As soon as they had an opportunity to do anything about student loans, however, they would welsh on their commitment.
The scheme is vital. It represents a great step forward in broadening the basis of financing higher education. It is a basis on which future Governments of this complexion will build. I would take a bet with anyone that there is no way in which a future Labour Government could find the resources that would enable them to undo the loan scheme.

Mr. Andrew Smith: rose—

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a short debate. The Front-Bench spokesman will have consumed more than half the allotted time. I do not cavil at your calling of hon. Members, but on the next occasion could the usual channels come to an understanding? There does not need to be a summing-up speech from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman and for other hon. Members who have not been called. However, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman rose to his feet and, as is customary, I must call him. Mr. Andrew Smith.

Mr. Andrew Smith: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) should not judge my speech before he hears it. The time that remains to me means that my speech will be far shorter than those of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
It has been true from the outset of this half-baked and mean-spirited legislation that the regulations have all the hallmarks of a rushed and botched job. The Government embarked on a dogma-driven dash for the statute book and have tripped themselves up all the way. It is significant that the only two speeches that we have heard in support of the regulations were from the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). Their speeches must have reassured the Minister. On the strength of what they said, we can be sure that they will not be in the front rank of candidates for his job.
The scheme has been a comedy of errors from the word go. However, it is not very funny for the students who will lose or for those who may never become students because of the barriers that it places in their path. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) pointed out, it began with the Government's refusal to publish, even in summary form, the responses to the White Paper consultations. When we analysed them, we found that 95 per cent. of the respondents rejected the scheme. That was why the Government refused to publish the responses.
The Government dragged their feet for almost 12 months before they would even provide time for a proper debate on the scheme. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary told the House that we could amend the regulations. However, as he subsequently recognised, and as we recognise tonight, we cannot do so.
Then there was the, "will they, won't they?" pantomime of the banks pulling out of the scheme and the Prime Minister fizzing with fury and promising retribution. And so it has gone on. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, the universities have not been properly consulted about the regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn our attention to the fact that the version of the regulations that was put to it was ultra vires on three counts.
More recently, such was the rush to incorporate last-minute amendments in time for the equivalent debate in the other place that properly printed copies of the regulations were not even available, and their Lordships debate was delayed while hapless officials leapt back to the printers for copies without handwritten corrections and typed riders. We have witnessed a Government display of concentrated incompetence from start to finish.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Member who closes the debate for the Opposition sum up the debate rather than reading out word for word what was written yesterday?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get on with the debate. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) did not hear all the debate. In any case, numerous hon. Members mentioned the concentrated display of incompetence to which I referred.
In implementing the Education (Student Loans) Act, the regulations will reflect all the damaging consequences of the parent legislation—the deterrent effect on poorer students, to which the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred; the unfair penalties for longer courses and on students in Scotland; the difficulties imposed on those entering poorly paid jobs; the administrative burden and the £2,170 million extra that the scheme will cost for the next 20 years, over and above the cost of uprating grants in line with inflation; as well as all the hardship that will be caused by the withdrawal of entitlement to social security benefits, which we discussed in the previous debate.

Dr. Hampson: That is all very well, but is it not about time that at least some Opposition Members acknowledged the fact that both the Minister for higher education in the last Labour Government, Gerry Fowler arid Maurice Peston, now Lord Peston, who was special adviser to Fred Mulley, now Lord Mulley, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science, agreed with the principle of student loans? Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that?

Mr. Smith: That is not true, and our record speaks for itself. We did not cut student maintenance by more than 20 per cent., as this Government have done during their period in office, making that an excuse for introducing the regulations before us. On the question of the much-vaunted but hopelessly inadequate access funds. what incompetence it is that, even now—not a couple of months


before students will be making applications—institutions still do not know how much they will have available to allocate to them.
I invite the Minister to attempt to answer the question that he failed to answer earlier about the technical position in Scotland. Has he or has he not taken the advice of the Scottish Law Officers, and is it or is it not the case that the last-minute amendments that have been spatchcocked into this wholly inadequate legislation do not cover the position in Scotland in respect of a minor who does not have the consent of his parent or curator? Let the Minister answer that question in his reply and let him answer, too, the points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) on other vocational qualifications. What about the physiotherapists and others registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960? Are they or are they not covered?
Time does not permit me to go all through the inadequacies of the regulations, but they are flawed from start to finish, as is the legislation on which they are based. That so many questions should remain unanswered at this very late stage in the introduction of the student loans scheme is as bad for parliamentary democracy and public accountability as it is for the many students who, like their places of study, Will be facing enormous difficulties this autumn. These are bad regulations under a bad Act, and they give effect to a thoroughly bad scheme. I urge the House to vote against them tonight for the sake of the educational opportunities that should be available as a right and not a privilege. The Labour party will stand up for that right when in government.

Mr. Jackson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate in the six minutes that the hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr. Smith) has left me. It is important that students should have access to loans in the academic year starting this autumn. There is no trace of the deterrent effect that has been argued by the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, applications in both the university and the polytechnic and colleges sectors are up by 6 to 7 per cent., and that is a substantial—indeed, a record—number of applicants.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the use of the banks to verify graduate income. Policy has developed since February. The Student Loans Company will not contact a graduate's employer or a bank for evidence of income, but it will seek evidence from the graduate. That may include information that is available to the graduate from such sources as employers.
The hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) both asked why there was no Student Loans Company by name. The reason is simply consistency with the main Act, which does not mention the Student Loans Company either. According to the main Act, the Secretary of State is empowered to make arrangements with
such person or persons as may agree to do so … or bodies constituted … for that purpose.
That is the basis on which we are proceeding in the regulations.
The hon. Members for Blackburn and for Truro also asked about the alleged cumbersomeness of the

procedures. Of course, there is a need to protect public money in the scheme. We also need to square the operation of student loans with the requirement of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, we can review the procedures each year in the light of experience and that is one advantage of the flexibility that we have allowed ourselves. We will keep the matter under review. We can also keep the £3.50 fee to the higher education institutions under review in the light of experience.
The hon. Member for Truro asked about disabled students. A happy feature of the legislation is the considerable improvement in the position of disabled students and graduates. They retain their entitlement to benefits as well as to the loan and that has now been extended to include deaf students. Disabled students allowance, which is payable with the mandatory grant, is increasing by 30 per cent. and we have introduced two further allowances to help disabled students for non-medical personal helpers and for major items of specialist equipment. For disabled graduates, we have provided that disability-related benefits will be disregarded when income is assessed for the purpose of deferment, and we have given discretion to the Student Loans Company to provide for a longer grace period.
The hon. Member for Truro asked for assurances that we would keep the position of disabled students under review. I am happy to repeat that we will continue to keep the position of all students under review.
The hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) asked why we changed the regulations after they had been tabled. The simple fact is that the draft regulations were submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which the hon. Member for Bradford, South is chairman. The Committee was inquorate, and that gave my officials the opportunity to discuss the draft with counsel. Although we were not obliged to, we were happy to revise the form of the regulations in line with counsel's advice on a couple of technical points. I emphasise that those are changes in the form of the structure of the regulations and not in their underlying policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked several questions. We have to consider the designation of private sector institutions and we will make an announcement shortly. He asked about part-timers and postgraduates. They could be brought within the scope of the scheme, but that would require an amendment to schedule 1 of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. The deferment threshold will be reviewed annually and the revision will not be subject to affirmative resolution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East also asked about the possibility of scholarships. We have considered that, but the loans are being made on favourable terms and there is no need for us to make them more favourable.
I was also asked about the Scottish Law Officers.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we are not going to pass the regulations without a clear sign from the Minister that the Scottish Law Officers will—[Interruption.]

Mr. Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has left me time to answer that point. The Scottish Law Officers were not consulted, because there is no specific question to


put to them. As indicated, only the courts can rule whether a loan agreement is enforceable in the particular circumstances of any case.
We are now in the last stages of the enactment of student loans. It has been a privilege for me to have had a share in the responsibility for the legislation. As hon. Members have pointed out, some with greater relish than others, we have had some exciting—

It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 217.

Division No. 288]
[12 midnight


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Allason, Rupert
Curry, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brazier, Julian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.





Hill, James
Norris, Steve


Hind, Kenneth
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, Sir William


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stevens, Lewis


Maples, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)






Waller, Gary
Wilshire, David


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Warren, Kenneth
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wheeler, Sir John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Whitney, Ray



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tony Durant.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flannery, Martin


Allen, Graham
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galloway, George


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beggs, Roy
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boateng, Paul
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hoyle, Doug


Carr, Michael
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, Tom
Kilfedder, James


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Livsey, Richard


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Doran, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Douglas, Dick
McAllion, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Fearn, Ronald
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Madden, Max





Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Ruddock, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Meacher, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Short, Clare


Miscampbell, Norman
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stott, Roger


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Prescott, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Jo



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Allen McKay and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

INCOME TAX (ITALY)

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1990 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6 June.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

INCOME TAX (NETHERLANDS)

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1990, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 6 June.—[Mr. Lighthown.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 (S.I. 1990, No. 1126), dated 21 May 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 6 June, be approved.—[ Mr. Lightbown.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

COAL INDUSTRY

That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.—[ Mr. Lightbown.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Local Government may be proceeded with, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 July, though opposed, until midnight; and, at the sitting on Thursday 12 July, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in the remaining Motions; and
(2) If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before Seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12 July, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the said Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Cambodia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Jim Lester: This is the second time that I have raised the subject on the Adjournment and the third time that I have spoken in the House about Her Majesty's Government's policy on Cambodia. Having put that on the record, I do not intend to repeat the points that I have made previously. I am sure that all hon. Members who take an interest in Cambodia are anxious about the lack of progress towards a settlement. We recognise that, perhaps inadvertently, delay cuts right across the Government's declared policy as I understand it, one of the major elements of which is to prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge. We have stated that strongly on more than one occasion.
The present delay leaves longer for the Khmer Rouge—which we and other EC countries, as well as the Association of South-East Asian Nations, have declared unacceptable in the strongest terms, if words mean anything—to undermine the existing order in Cambodia and to maim and kill even more innocent people by indiscriminate use of mines and hit-and-run tactics, to boycott the talks in Tokyo. It was behind the fourth occasion on which Prince Sihanouk, as leader of the so-called coalition, signed an agreement with the Hun Sen regime and backed out of it.
In previous debates, I have never suggested that recognition of the Government is a good policy. It is essential to reconcile the internal and external Khmers. They need to work with each other if a democratic, neutral future is to be assured. However, as the months go by, that seems an increasingly attractive alternative.
I remain deeply worried about Her Majesty's Government's inability to make any further direct moves beyond the delegation that visited Phnom Penh in December last year and the welcome distribution of £1 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to United Nations and non-governmental organisation operations in Cambodia.
I recognise the diplomatic skills of senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in moving the Security Council to overall agreement on 16 January. Two of the 16 points agreed were that no acceptable solution can won be by force of arms and that there is an urgent need to speed up diplomatic efforts to achieve a settlement.
On 26 May, a further agreement was made. It said :
The Five reaffirmed that a comprehensive political settlement must include specific provisions, as follows:

(a) To ensure the verification of the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the cessation of external military assistance, …
(b) To establish formally a supreme national council;

To enshrine the fundamental human rights and freedoms which the Cambodian people must enjoy, together with the necessary protections and guarantees;
To provide a system of guarantees for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia.
We understood that there was to be a further meeting of the Security Council tomorrow, but that has been postponed to 17 and 18 July. It is in advance of that that I want to raise these points, because it is at that meeting that we hope that some progress will be made.
Since those two rounds of meetings, we have seen the results of the recent Tokyo discussions, after considerable preparations by the Japanese Government. They tried to promote what many of us have argud for—a supreme national council based on a 50:50 split between the Hun Sen Government and the coalition. I understand from the Minister of the Cambodian Government that there was an agreement to form a supreme national council on the basis of six from the Hun Sen Government and two plus two plus two from each of the other factions. The Khmer Rouge boycotted it.
The second agreement was that, if the Khmer Rouge boycotted the discussions, the other formula could be six plus three, plus three from each of the other groups. I understand that all that work has been rejected by Prince Sihanouk as of no value.
Meantime, we have seen a rush of recent claims about what is happening inside Cambodia. Nobody knows the true security position. We have seen reports of the four-five-six stratagem cutting the main routes in the north-west to starve the people in Phnom Penh of food. We have heard further assertions by the Khmer Rouge that they want to cut the routes to the south, which would bring about the fall of the Government. We do know, however, as there is plenty of evidence, that Cambodian boat people are now in Australia, where they seem far from welcome, and in Indonesia, and that between 20,000 and 80,000 are internally displaced people. This certainly was not the case when I last visited.
I understand that there are 11 relocation sites, some of which have been visited by the Red Cross and Oxfam. That shows that people are on the move because of this continuing civil war, which is indirectly assisted by external support for the coalition. It is taking its toll of innocent civilians and making genuine settlement more difficult.
I press my hon. Friend the Minister to make more contact in Phnom Penh to get even-handed information better to form our policy. Other countries, such as Thailand, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Australia, have closer contacts than we have. India has a diplomatic representation. France has opened an office of the Alliance Francaise, which is the equivalent of the British Council, but is staffed by a diplomat. Does my hon. Friend share the information from that office? Does the Soviet Union, which is also knowledgeable about the short-term situation in Cambodia, keep the Government informed?
I am worried that this delay means a gradual undermining of the Cambodian economy and the military situation so that only the Khmer Rouge could gain a victory. We are all set against that. If it ever happened, where would we, despite all our protestations, hide our face?
It is not seriously disputed that the Hun Sen Government have instituted a generally constructive administration under great difficulties. Certainly nobody would dispute that they stand qualitatively superior to their predecessor. I hope that my hon. Friend will at least refrain from the hostile language of previous debates when, despite condemning the Khmer Rouge, we have tried to argue that the regime in Phnom Penh is of Khmer

Rouge officers imposed by Vietnamese bayonets. After 10 years and many visits from hon. Members from both sides of the House, that is no longer a legitimate argument.
If we cannot set up our own mission, at least we should back a European or United Nations' mission in Phnom Penh to show that we are even handed in our assessment of the external and internal Khmers. A great deal of work needs to be done to plan for aid projections for the future when a settlement is agreed. We should provide economic assistance to balance the withdrawal of Soviet and east European aid, a welcome sign of the change in those countries' attitudes. But in countries such as Cambodia, and certainly Vietnam, it poses short-term difficulties.
We should work enthusiastically towards a ceasefire, so that we can implement the Secretary-General's Paris recommendations. I hope that we can talk in strong terms to China, the United States and the USSR to agree to stop shipments of military arms and resources. I should like Thailand to take active steps to ensure that human rights exist in the coalition camps, and at least move those who wish to go to neutral camps under United Nations protection, so that they can avoid conscription to fight in the civil war.
I should like us to press the United States, and particularly China, to change their policy of treating the the existing regime as an extension of Vietnam, which it is not. There are many sources of information, including congressmen and senators who have been to see the position for themselves. I welcome the report in today's edition of The Independent that the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, is talking about reviewing American policy on Cambodia. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has any idea what that means, but if he does we shall be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his persistence on this issue. Does he agree that, whether or not the United States changes its policy on Cambodia, the British Government should get together with other EC Governments and pursue an independent foreign policy in relation to Cambodia? Time is short—the hon. Gentleman will have seen the detailed report by Mr. Raoul Jennar stating that the regime in Phnom Penh has between 12 and 18 months, after which time it will go under. Some substantial assistance, more than just a seat at the United Nations, will have to be rendered to Cambodia if it is to survive.

Mr. Lester: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons that I asked for this debate was because I sensed that it is a critical situation. I believe that nobody genuinely knows the military state in Cambodia. The Government is in a catch-22 situation. If they say that they cannot win, they are not regarded as able to defend their territory, and so are not seen as a potential Government. If they say that they are strong and intend to fight, it gives the impression that they seek to continue to solve the problem by military means.
One of the criticisms that I heard in Washington when I was there arguing with the United States Administration was that they said that they do not support communist regimes, and they described the Hun Sen regime as communist. The question that I, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister, should ask is, in that case, why do they support Laos and have an embassy there? Why do they give China most favoured nation trading status? Why


cannot they normalise their relations with Vietnam, which would be one of the most significant factors in bringing about peace in south-east Asia?
One of the comments made by the Cambodian Government is that their only fault is that they were liberated from Pol Pot by the Vietnamese. They say that, if they had been liberated by any other force—the Thais or anyone else—they would now be in a much happier position. They are given no credit for any of their actions.
I wish to ask a question of my hon. Friend—this time well in advance of the United Nations General Assembly. Last year, ironically, it passed a resolution that was profoundly out of date with the day-to-day position, but which there was not time to renegotiate in between the withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces and the drafting of the ASEAN countries.
My question is: what view are Her Majesty's Government going to take in the next session? I hope that they can influence the nature of the ASEAN draft in good time and accurately reflect the fact that the Vietnamese have withdrawn; that there is a civil war in Cambodia; that it is being fought against a ruthless army led by men who have been universally condemned for their past actions; and that they are now establishing, in the hiatus, a strong guerrilla base trying to win by attrition what they could not win by negotiation or the ballot box.
The second issue at the United Nations is that of who will occupy the seat increasingly being held by the dubious external Government of the coalition. I know that my hon. Friend will say that the British Government do not recognise them as the external Government but just go along with the rest of the United Nations by using the term. We have all seen that the fact that the Khmer Rouge has held the seat on behalf of the coalition has given them incredible advantage in terms of the negotiations.
On 3 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
In future, we shall reconsider our vote as to who shall take that seat for Cambodia."—[Official Report, 3 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 856.]
Tonight I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider our overall policy and actions on Cambodia and to tailor them to meet the statement made by my hon. Friend the Foreign Minister to me on 26 March:
Our abhorrence of the Khmer Rouge remains absolute, and we are doing what we can to prevent Pol Pot and his friends from returning to power."—[Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 29–30.]
I am asking whether what we are doing will prevent Pol Pot and his friends from returning to power.

The Parliamentary Under-Secetary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for providing this further opportunity to discuss the efforts of the international community to restore peace and stability to a country and people that have known war and desperation for too many years.
We may be approaching a decisive stage for Cambodia's future. The five permanent members of the Security Council meet again on 16 and 17 July to pursue their efforts to formulate a comprehensive political settlement acceptable to all the Cambodian parties; we are waiting to see whether the agreement between Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk in Tokyo in June will lead to an end to hostilities and the creation of a supreme national

council by the end of this month. There are signs that the Hun Sen regime is faltering as economic difficulties bite and military pressure from the resistance increases; and we and others are already considering how to handle Cambodia at this year's United Nations General Assembly. This is clearly a good moment to review recent developments and to consider the prospects for the peace process.
My hon. Friend asked how we get our information to furnish the background against which to carry out this reconsideration. Although we do not have diplomatic representation in Phnom Penh, we keep ourselves well informed of events there. Our embassy in Bangkok is responsible for reporting on Cambodia and draws on a wide variety of sources for its information. We exchange information with our friends and partners, including the French, other members of the 12, our partners in the permanent five and, of course, the Australians. We take every opportunity to meet people who are living and working in Phnom Penh. There is, however, no question of our having Government-to-Government relations with the state of Cambodia without a comprehensive political settlement.
We continue to play an active part in the search for peace, based on a conviction that a comprehensive political settlement is the only effective way of safeguarding Cambodia's future and preventing a return to the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime. When the House last debated Cambodia, in November 1989, hon. Members may recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to new diplomatic ideas coming forward, in particular an
interim United Nations authority, as suggested by Congressman Solarz".
He added:
A return to the negotiating table is becoming increasingly urgent".—[Official Report, 13 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 51.]
His remarks were clearly in tune with the thinking of our friends and partners. In late November, the Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Evans, proposed a settlement based on an enhanced United Nations role in Cambodia, including an interim United Nations administration. Meanwhile, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have also been considering their role, given that they are uniquely well placed to influence the development of a settlement in Indochina.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition substantially share the view advanced by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). The Minister says that the permanent five are especially well placed to put forward a solution. Britain, which is one of the permanent five, is even better placed, because it is not seen to have any axe to grind. So far, the Minister has spoken as an observer. It would help the House if he could tell us what positive proposals or suggestions the Government will put forward at that meeting to try to help solve the difficulties.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the permanent five must work together on the problem if there is to be an effective solution and real progress.
The five were encouraged by the international response to Senator Evans's initiative, and in particular by the fact that none of the Cambodian parties dismissed it. They


concluded that they could usefully develop Australian ideas with the eventual aim of putting definite proposals to the Cambodians themselves. We regard this as a helpful and important step towards reviving the negotiating process.
Against this background, the Asia directors of the permanent five have made encouraging progress in their four meetings so far. At the first, in Paris, they agreed 16 principles to guide them and others in working for a peaceful settlement. These confirm the objectives that Britain has consistently pursued in the search for peace: that no acceptable solution can be achieved by force of arms; that a comprehensive political settlement is the only way of ensuring a durable peace; and that free and fair elections must be held. Those principles have since been widely accepted, most notably by the three members of the resistance coalition National Government of Cambodia, as the best foundation for a settlement.
At their second and third meetings, the five had more detailed discussions on specific aspects of a possible settlement. These included the modalities of peacekeeping—including military aspects—the administrative structure in Cambodia in the period before elections; the organisation of elections; and a supreme national council as the repository of Cambodian sovereignty.
The most recent meeting of the permanent five, in New York, took place in rather different circumstances. There were indications of a rapprochement between China and Vietnam, and Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen were about to meet in Tokyo. The five, therefore, while indicating that they could be flexible over the scale and scope of a United Nations role in Cambodia, also stressed that there must be certain indispensable conditions for a comprehensive settlement in Cambodia if the United Nations was to play an effective part without quite unacceptable risks to its personnel and if the settlement was to be durable. They spelled these out, and I think that they are important enough to repeat in full.
Such a settlement must ensure the verification of the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the cessation of external military assistance; a durable ceasefire; the re-grouping of the armed forces of the factions into designated cantonment areas—all under the control of an effective United Nations peacekeeping operation. It must formally establish a supreme national council and ensure free and fair elections for a constituent assembly under United Nations auspices. It must enshrine the fundamental human rights and freedoms which the Cambodian people must enjoy, together with the necessary protections and guarantees. It must provide a system of guarantees for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia.
These conditions reflect our hopes for Cambodia's future, and are the minimum guarantees that the Cambodians will eventually be able to live in peace and stability, free from the fear of civil war and the return of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
We hope that the Cambodian parties can agree a settlement on that basis. The structure and powers of the SNC are really for it to decide and we would not wish to insist on any specific formula for the inclusion or otherwise of all the Cambodian parties. But it is an open question whether the Cambodians will be able to agree without

strong outside help. Their record is not good. Earlier this year, the Australians pursued a useful but inconclusive series of contacts with the Cambodian parties in an attempt to establish what common ground existed between them. In February, the Indonesians hosted a meeting of regional countries, including the four Cambodian parties, but the participants failed to agree on a final document, mainly because Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge did not seem ready to settle.
However, in Tokyo, Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk signed a document committing themselves to the creation of a supreme national council and a voluntary end to hostilities by the end of July. That could be a step in the right direction, but it also illustrates the difficulty of trying to achieve a partial settlement which is not organically linked to all the other elements in a comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement.

Mr. Lester: The point that I wanted to make—as I said in my speech—is that I understand that Prince Sihanouk has now withdrawn from that agreement. This is the fourth time that he has reached an agreement with the Hun Sen Government, and the fourth time that he has withdrawn.

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that that reinforces what I have just said about the difficulties of reaching agreement with all the Cambodian parties. The Khmer Rouge disassociated itself from the document because it claimed that it was not treated as an equal partner. Without the agreement of all parties, there must be serious doubts about the effectiveness of any ceasefire, and without the other minimum indispensable elements that the five agreed in May, the United Nations is unlikely to become involved in such a settlement.
Where, then, does the way forward lie? We are approaching a turning point. By the end of this month, with or without the Khmer Rouge, a supreme national council may exist, opening the way to a new alignment of the Cambodian parties. Hun Sen embraced the idea with great enthusiasm—as well he might, for his own position is looking increasingly uncertain. As the countries of eastern and central Europe look to their own economic development, money is being progressively cut off. The same is happening to Hun Sen's foreign mainstay, Vietnam: not only the rug but the floor and foundations are being pulled out from beneath both regimes.
The Government in Phnom Penh are becoming demoralised, at the same time as military pressures from the resistance increase. Hun Sen should therefore have every incentive to reach a settlement as soon as possible. The resistance coalition should also be ready to negotiate. The Khmer Rouge must know that the international community would never accept its return to power alone in Cambodia by military force, and that under it Cambodia would be condemned to isolation, continuing misery and probably civil war. We call on all the Cambodian parties to compose their differences and begin the essential process of national reconciliation.
Our conclusion, therefore, is that there is greater urgency than ever to achieve an internationally acceptable comprehensive political settlement. The permanent five had intended to meet representatives of all four Cambodian parties at their next meeting in Paris. Failure of the Tokyo meeting to demonstrate unanimity among the Cambodian parties has caused the five to think again.
We agreed that, before meeting the Cambodians direct, the five must agree what they intend to say to them. The aim of the five's Paris meeting will therefore be to complete a detailed examination of a series of working papers to form the basis of a comprehensive political settlement. These would then serve as a mandate for a meeting with the Cambodian parties as soon as possible thereafter. If the Cambodians themselves are prepared to work within the five's framework, it may be possible to consider a date for reconvening the Paris international conference on Cambodia. I do not wish to raise hopes that this will happen in the near future, but we should like it to: it is our aim.
As my hon. Friend has already made clear, if no settlement is reached, another concern is the question of Cambodia's representation at the United Nations, and this year's debate on Cambodia at the General Assembly. As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 13 June—in column 283 of Hansard—we are reviewing our policy on this matter with our EC partners. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated that in answer to questions on 3 July—in column 856.
Our friends and partners are all well aware of our reservations about allowing the status quo at the United Nations to continue, given the changes in the situation since last year's General Assembly. With this in mind, over the summer we shall be looking at the possibilities for change, taking into account the efforts of a range of countries—including those of the permanent five—to achieve a comprehensive political settlement.
The question of Cambodia's United Nations representation will first come up in the credentials committee in about mid-October. Much could happen before then. In the event of a comprehensive political settlement, the issue would resolve itself: in the period before free elections, the supreme national council would occupy the seat in place of the National Government of Cambodia. It would be defeatist to assume now that a challenge to the credentials of the national government of Cambodia—in the credentials committee or on the floor of the General Assembly—will be necessary by October. As for the General Assembly debate on the situation in Cambodia, we have yet to see a resolution, and would not expect to do so until the autumn. When we do, we shall take a view on how to respond.
Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the humanitarian needs of the Cambodian people are as great

as ever. Since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced our intention of building up our humanitarian aid programme for the benefit of all Cambodians, we have made good progress, especially inside Cambodia. To date, we have already contributed £224,000 to British non-governmental organisations for projects inside Cambodia and have committed a further £230,000. A number of other proposals with a total value in excess of £500,000 are also under consideration.
My hon. Friend referred to the pledge of £1 million we made at the beginning of this year for the work of multilateral agencies inside Cambodia. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced in her written statement on 5 July, we shall be donating £500,000 to UNICEF, £300,000 to the world food programme, and £200,000 to the World Health Organisation. Each pledge is for a specific purpose to alleviate suffering and raise the standard of people's lives inside Cambodia. We also remain committed to providing humanitarian assistance for the civilian population of camps for displaced persons along the Thai-Cambodia border, administered by the non-communist resistance factions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: No, I am afraid that there is not enough time.
No-one, however, could deny that the best way of bringing relief to all Cambodians is a return to peace and stability, with the opportunity to choose whom they wish to govern them. We are committed to working for this and will do our utmost with our friends and partners to achieve it. Unless the Cambodians themselves want peace, however, and are prepared to work constructively and co-operatively towards it, no settlement will be successful. We would urge all the Cambodian factions to take full advantage of the opportunities that the international community is making for them to reach a comprehensive political settlement. If they do, they can be sure of Britian's help and support in Cambodia's reconstruction and development.

The motion having being made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.